9 ms·
I mostly agree with you. However, > It's a significant experimental accomplishment that points to a future in which general-purpose NLP models could be used fo
by 100721 6y ago
I mostly agree with you. However,
> It's a significant experimental accomplishment that points to a future in which general-purpose NLP models could be used for novel tasks without requiring additional training from the get-go.
This premise is still purely science fiction. This model does not touch on either novel tasks nor being free from pretraining (unless I misunderstand). But overall, I think you’re right: it’s significant for a number of reasons.
- cs702 6y agoGPT-3 was pretrained on five datasets (Common Crawl, WebText2, Books1, Books2, and Wikipedia; see table 2.2), and then used on previously unseen tasks (Q&A, translation, cloze, etc.) without finetuning, i.e., weights were not updated after the original (autoregressive) pretraining. This promises a possible future in which general-purpose models are pretrained once, and deployed to production for multiple tasks.
- pacala 6y agoThis is pretty mind-boggling, to the point of suspecting an error in the methodology. If it is just a language model, then it has no baked in notion of test time tasks. How on earth does a language model know what is required of it at test-time without fine tuning? How does it know that the test time prompt are examples of the task, and not some story prompt it's supposed to riff off in random ways?
- cs702 6y agoYes, mind-boggling. For each task, the authors feed a context window of text with either zero to a few sample queries and responses, followed by a query without the response. The model generates a response for the last query. BTW, this approach is analogous to what you would do with a human being: you would provide zero to a few sample questions and answers, and then ask a question.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]