Uncorrelated references about learn_prompting

[matthias-samwald]

Ah, seems like a combination of two things:

1. On mobile, the numbers for the references in the final reference list are not shown, so it was hard to tell which reference is matched with which in-text citation.
2. The references you choose seem quite loose, e.g. you cite Kojima 2022 and Wei 2022 a lot for very general statements (e.g. citing davinci-002, or for the concept of 'exemplars').

[trigaten]

Thank you for this feedback; I really appreciate it.

On mobile, the numbers for the references in the final reference list are not shown, so it was hard to tell which reference is matched with which in-text citation.

I cannot reproduce this issue on my phone. What device are you using?

The references you choose seem quite loose, e.g. you cite Kojima 2022 and Wei 2022 a lot for very general statements (e.g. citing davinci-002, or for the concept of 'exemplars').

I did cite Wei for the definition of exemplars as it was the one that had given me the best understanding of it. Regardless, I agree that I should have a better citation. Do you have a suggestion for a better paper to cite here?

I cited Brown et al. for davinci-002. Would you mind poining me to a loose usage of Kojima?

Thanks again. I endeavor for accuracy in this course and reviews like these make this more possible :)