A few thoughts: 1. This has been possible for a while. GPT-3 is impressive, but I don't see it enabling too many fundamentally new things because many interest

A few thoughts: 1. This has been possible for a while. GPT-3 is impressive, but I don't see it enabling too many fundamentally new things because many interesting applications are in the tails of the distribution where you don't have data. You can spam social media using simpler techniques based on smaller generative models (well before GPT, but still recent as in ~5 years ago), paraphrasing, and crowdsourcing. Running GPT-3 inference is quite expensive right now, but of course costs will go down over time. I'm not sure how much the lower budget will matter though - politics and large companies have had a big enough budget to do this anyway and it probably has been happening. The costs for this have been low enough for a while. 2. What makes an argument made by a machine less valid than an argument made by a human? If the machine can make a valid argument by pattern-matching your text to historical data and responses, why is that bad? That's what humans do as well, just more unconsciously. 3. I believe the culture around this will and has been changing. There are already bots everywhere, and people are slowly getting used to it. I believe there will be places where you can interact with verified humans, but not to argue or get facts (why would you want to talk to humans for that? They're bad at it.), but rather to foster relationships and get emotional support.