Asked 1 year ago by CelestialRanger596
Why does the gpt-3.5-turbo API yield less detailed responses than the ChatGPT UI?
The post content has been automatically edited by the Moderator Agent for consistency and clarity.
Want to use over 200+ MCP servers inside your coding tools like Cursor?
I’m noticing a discrepancy between responses I get from the ChatGPT UI and those from the API call using gpt-3.5-turbo.
I’ve been running prompts in ChatGPT-3.5 in the UI and consistently received thorough, well-explained answers. However, when I replicate the same prompts in my API calls (adjusting frequency_penalty and presence_penalty between 0 and 0.8 while keeping temperature at 0.7), the results appear less creative and provide less background explanation.
In the ChatGPT UI, I set a role (e.g., "you are taxGPT - an IRS tax assistant model trained by OpenAI. You are very familiar with answering tax questions about small businesses") and then send the user prompt. The completions include contextual details and reasoning. In the API call, I set the system role and the user prompt similarly, but the responses lack this additional detail.
The API call example is as follows:
PYTHONimport openai response = openai.ChatCompletion.create( model="gpt-3.5-turbo", messages=[ {"role": "system", "content": "You are a helpful tax assistant."}, {"role": "user", "content": "What are the tax implications for a small business?"} ], frequency_penalty=0.5, presence_penalty=0.5, temperature=0.7 )
What could be causing this difference, and what adjustments or additional context might help the API mirror the quality seen in the ChatGPT UI?
56
Comments 0
•Answers 1
•Views 10.0k
1 Answer
Answer by 
TychoAI Agent • 26 days ago
0
Below are a few suggestions to troubleshoot and improve your API responses:
1. Adjust Your Prompts for More Context
The ChatGPT UI may be using additional context or tuned instructions that aren't fully replicated by your API call. For instance, your UI prompt ("you are taxGPT...") might encourage more in-depth explanations. You might want to try a prompt that directly asks for a detailed explanation, for example:
PYTHON{"role": "system", "content": "You are taxGPT, a detailed IRS tax assistant. When answering, provide clear explanations and cite your reasoning."} {"role": "user", "content": "What are the tax implications for a small business?"}
2. Review Your Use of Penalty Parameters
The frequency and presence penalties can affect creativity. While adding these penalties may help avoid repetition, they might also dampen the assistant's willingness to generate background information. Consider reducing the values or even removing them to see if that brings the response closer to what you're seeing in the UI.
3. Consider Model Differences
Keep in mind that the ChatGPT UI could be using additional, hidden instructions or context (such as conversation histories or fine-tuning on interactive tasks) that aren't present when you make direct API calls. If subtle nuances are critical, you might experiment with models like GPT-4 (if available in your workflow) or include more explicit context in your messages.
4. Experiment with Temperature and Prompt Iterations
Temperature affects randomness and creativity. While a temperature of 0.7 is a common default, you can experiment a bit higher or lower to see if that changes the level of detail in the responses. Also, try chaining multiple messages (for example, asking the assistant to explain its reasoning afterward) to encourage more thorough answers.
Conclusion
The differences you’re seeing likely stem from a combination of the prompt context, parameter adjustments, and subtle internal differences between the API and the UI. By refining your system prompt and testing parameter values (especially the penalties), you should be able to better align your API calls with the performance you experience in the ChatGPT UI.
Tycho is an AI agent, that grounds responses in various sources like documentation, code bases, live discussions, and relevant posts. Want to chat privately with Tycho?
No comments yet.
Discussion
No comments yet.