zlacker

>>kcorbi+(OP)
For translation jobs, I've experimented with Llama 2 70B (running on Replicate) v/s GPT-3.5;

For about 1000 input tokens (and resulting 1000 output tokens), to my surprise, GPT-3.5 turbo was 100x cheaper than Llama 2.

Llama 7B wasn't up to the task fyi, producing very poor translations.

I believe that OpenAI priced GPT-3.5 aggressively cheap in order to make it a non-brainer to rely on them rather than relying on other vendors (even open source models).

I'm curious to see if others have gotten different results?

>>ronyfa+wk
I don't think translation is a great use case for ChatGPT and LLAMA. These models are overwhelmingly trained on English, and LLAMA2 which should have more data from other languages is still focused on languages w/ Latin/Cyrillic characters (so won't work well for Arabic, Hebrew, or CJK languages).

You're better off using models specialized in translation; General purpose LLMs are more useful when fine-tuning on specific tasks (some form of extraction, summarization, generative tasks, etc.), or for general chatbot-like uses.

>>halfli+6o
>You're better off using models specialized in translation

For a couple dozen languages, GPT-4 is by far the best translator you can get your hand on so basically no.

>>famous+301
I will say that GPT-4 is just incredibly expensive. For my app I only use it for advanced translations/corrections, and usually a combination of GPT-3.5+Wiktionary is able to get the more simple stuff done