Scheduled Commit

data/retrieval_battle-112c1ce1-fe57-41e6-8919-4f1859b89f91.jsonl

@@ -20,3 +20,4 @@
 {"tstamp": 1723852427.5691, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "49c9455e10a74e10a1b315ac0f3cb54e", "0_model_name": "voyage-multilingual-2", "0_prompt": "are pyrex glass dishes oven proof?", "0_output": [["are pyrex glass dishes oven proof?", "Physics Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why does temperature change the friction coefficient of my stovetop? I have a Ceran cooking field at home, it's a glass-ceramic surface with heating coils embedded beneath. When I slide a pan around there's much more friction on a hot plate than on a cool one. Why?\nLater clarification: My cooking field has regular thermal heating, it's not an induction oven.\nThe oven:\n\nThe pan, notice the concentric grooves:\n\nThe pan has clearly seen better days, maybe the organic residues do play a role, as John Rennie suggested.\n\nA: My guess is that it is hot gas or water vaper trapped between the pot / pan and the surface of the range.  That layer of gas separates the metal pan from the ceramic / glass range-top and makes it more lubricious.\n"]], "0_corpus": "stackexchange", "1_conv_id": "830060e3410c4c5fbf58acd6c059d5fe", "1_model_name": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "1_prompt": "are pyrex glass dishes oven proof?", "1_output": [["are pyrex glass dishes oven proof?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: What is the name for the glove worn to take out baked food from oven, so that touching the hot tray doesn't burn our hands? Is there a specific name for the thick glove worn (or may be any cloth used) to touch hot dishes in the oven? \nFor example, we wear a glove and take the dish containing baked food from the oven.\nIt's use is to save our hand from being burnt by touching the hot dish.\n\nA: In order to identify the object the OP is describing, I  posted this answer with the term I use. At first I didn't think about alternative expressions based on geographical location. Other users did that after mine. I think the OP  can enjoy a  lively and useful discussion on the theme. \nOven glove:\n\nBRITISH ENGLISH - a ​thick ​covering for the ​hand, used for taking ​hot things out of an ​oven\n\n(Cambridge Dictionary)\n\n"]], "1_corpus": "stackexchange"}
 {"tstamp": 1723852475.759, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "leftvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "cb5ab199c90b45ddae648541ff3e6b3e", "0_model_name": "BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5", "0_prompt": "what is the difference between would like to and want?", "0_output": [["what is the difference between would like to and want?", "Ell Stackexchange\n\nQ: I want to vs I need to vs I would like What is the difference between these expressions :\n\n\n*\n\n*I want to do something\n\n*I need to do something\n\n*I would like to do something\n\n\nSpecially when you want to ask for help (In doing something).\nand is \"I'm wanting ...\" right?\n\nA: Wants are often distinguished from needs\nA need is something that is necessary for survival (such as food and shelter), whereas a want is simply something that a person would like to have.  \n'I would like to . . .' states your preferred or desired action, and should usually be followed by the infinitive.   \n"]], "0_corpus": "stackexchange", "1_conv_id": "1d2ddedb11d44ae7bebd35c459288176", "1_model_name": "BM25", "1_prompt": "what is the difference between would like to and want?", "1_output": [["what is the difference between would like to and want?", "English Stackexchange\n\nQ: \"would love/like to\" usage? What is the difference between the sentences \n\"I would love/like to play cricket\" and \" I want to play cricket.\" Is there any difference in the moods?\n\nA: Yes, the moods are different:\n\n\n*\n\n*want is in the indicative mood.\n\n*would love is (arguably) in the conditional mood, or perhaps the optative.\n\n"]], "1_corpus": "stackexchange"}
 {"tstamp": 1723856432.2395, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "rightvote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "7b90074539c444e4ba449e49d01273fc", "0_model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "0_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "0_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Progress in artificial intelligence\n\nSub-human Optical character recognition for printed text (nearing par-human for Latin-script typewritten text)\nObject recognition\nVarious robotics tasks that may require advances in robot hardware as well as AI, including:\nStable bipedal locomotion: Bipedal robots can walk, but are less stable than human walkers (as of 2017)\nHumanoid soccer\nSpeech recognition: \"nearly equal to human performance\" (2017)\nExplainability. Current medical systems can diagnose certain medical conditions well, but cannot explain to users why they made the diagnosis.\nMany tests of fluid intelligence (2020)\nBongard visual cognition problems, such as the Bongard-LOGO benchmark (2020)\nVisual Commonsense Reasoning (VCR) benchmark (as of 2020)\nStock market prediction: Financial data collection and processing using Machine Learning algorithms\nAngry Birds video game, as of 2020\nVarious tasks that are difficult to solve without contextual knowledge, including:\nTranslation\nWord-sense disambiguation\nProposed tests of artificial intelligence\nIn his famous Turing test, Alan Turing picked language, the defining feature of human beings, for its basis. The Turing test is now considered too exploitable to be a meaningful benchmark.\nThe Feigenbaum test, proposed by the inventor of expert systems, tests a machine's knowledge and expertise about a specific subject. A paper by Jim Gray of Microsoft in 2003 suggested extending the Turing test to speech understanding, speaking and recognizing objects and behavior."]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "5b6e98dcf9f84194b130aa9f3cd41dea", "1_model_name": "text-embedding-3-large", "1_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "1_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1723857828.4685, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "tievote", "models": ["", ""], "ip": "", "0_conv_id": "2206a8dc418f46a8a7d69e93c0c48974", "0_model_name": "intfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instruct", "0_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "0_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "0_corpus": "wikipedia", "1_conv_id": "977facfb89fd45eb80d54bbd188f99d0", "1_model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "1_prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "1_output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "1_corpus": "wikipedia"}

data/retrieval_individual-112c1ce1-fe57-41e6-8919-4f1859b89f91.jsonl

@@ -77,3 +77,5 @@
 {"tstamp": 1723856418.0638, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "text-embedding-3-large", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1723856415.3077, "finish": 1723856418.0638, "ip": "", "conv_id": "5b6e98dcf9f84194b130aa9f3cd41dea", "model_name": "text-embedding-3-large", "prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1723857764.4907, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "intfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instruct", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1723857762.2489, "finish": 1723857764.4907, "ip": "", "conv_id": "2206a8dc418f46a8a7d69e93c0c48974", "model_name": "intfloat/multilingual-e5-large-instruct", "prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
 {"tstamp": 1723857764.4907, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1723857762.2489, "finish": 1723857764.4907, "ip": "", "conv_id": "977facfb89fd45eb80d54bbd188f99d0", "model_name": "GritLM/GritLM-7B", "prompt": "Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "output": [["Which test was devised to determine whether robots can think?", "Turing test\n\nThe test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper \"Computing Machinery and Intelligence\" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: \"I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think? Because \"thinking\" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to \"replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.\" Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person game called the \"imitation game\", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: \"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?\" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that \"machines can think\".\nSince Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticized, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Philosopher John Searle would comment on the Turing test in his Chinese room argument, a thought experiment that stipulates that a machine cannot have a \"mind\", \"understanding\", or \"consciousness\", regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. Searle criticizes Turing's test and claims it is insufficient to detect the presence of consciousness.\nHistory"]], "corpus": "wikipedia"}
+{"tstamp": 1723857868.5087, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1723857868.295, "finish": 1723857868.5087, "ip": "", "conv_id": "772e5ccf839d4932b506dee2f323c702", "model_name": "mixedbread-ai/mxbai-embed-large-v1", "prompt": "Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "output": [["Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Do the Machines in \"The Matrix\" Adhere to the Three Laws of Robotics? In the \"real world\" of the Matrix, do the machines follow Asimov's Three Rules? Were they even programmed with them?\nEDIT: I realize that killing people goes against the 1st law, but by keeping people in the Matrix (which the machines view as a symbiosis) rather than simply killing off these \"annoying\" creatures, I wonder if the killings can be seen as \"preserving the greater good\" or something along those lines; and thus justify violating the laws.\n\nA: \nA robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a\n  human being to come to harm.\nA robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where\n  such orders would conflict with the First Law.\nA robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does\n  not conflict with the First or Second Laws.\n\nNo, no, and no.\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}
+{"tstamp": 1723857868.5087, "task_type": "retrieval", "type": "chat", "model": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "gen_params": {}, "start": 1723857868.295, "finish": 1723857868.5087, "ip": "", "conv_id": "b66562ac7ec34cc986c69d31fbca225a", "model_name": "Salesforce/SFR-Embedding-2_R", "prompt": "Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "output": [["Why did the machines in The Matrix keep humans around?", "Scifi Stackexchange\n\nQ: Why use full brained humans as batteries? \nPossible Duplicate:\nIs the basic premise of humans as a power source in The Matrix reasonable?\nWhy Did the Machines Even Bother With a Matrix? \n\nThe machines in The Matrix series use humans as batteries. That's OK. But why did the machines not alter their livestock such that the matrix itself would be unnecessary?  \nConsider the recently proposed headless chicken farm. Something similar for the human batteries would seem to be an ideal solution for logical machines. No longer would they need to spend resources maintaining a virtual reality for their batteries. The energy, physical hardware and programs running the matrix could then be put to who knows what other uses.\n\nA: The explanation for the use of human brains would seem to be the fact that our complex thoughts lead to higher level of brain activity, thus resulting in exponentially more synapses firing (i.e. more electrical activity to harvest).\nThat makes human brains far more efficient than the brains of animals, even with the overhead of maintaining the matrix.  Plus, that movie would have really sucked... dumb cows and chickens revolt against the machines!  ;)\n"]], "corpus": "stackexchange"}