3 ms·
Also both comments made me suspicious half way through and I scrolled to the bottom to check for a GPT-3 note. Without that note I would definitely have regarde
by ascar 6y ago
Also both comments made me suspicious half way through and I scrolled to the bottom to check for a GPT-3 note. Without that note I would definitely have regarded it as incoherent rambling by a human.
Especially the second comment can be coherently interpreted with some good will and a cynical view of the humanities and philosophy. The "author" could say that once GPT-3 can write humanities papers it will quickly make humanity scientists redundant and that humanities scientists are philosophers is not important and doesn't warrant a job alone ("they don't actually do anything"). Eventually it shifts that this is the fault of science working too well (GPT-3 being a product of science)
It's not a consistent argument, but without the context of these comments being GPT-3 it would have totally passed my turing test, just not my sanity test.
- thom 6y agoI think (slash worry) that this is going to be a simple upgrade in future iterations. Obviously there are powerful attention mechanisms at work to keep the subject matter coherent, but we’re not too far off the model being able to generate a core thesis, and ensure that all the generated text supports that in some way.
- tsimionescu 6y agoI think that if that worked it would prove that either language is a much more powerful tool than we realize, or our cognitive capacities are much more trivial than we realize. The model fundamentally has no understanding of the world, so if it can successfully argue about a central thesis without simply selecting pre-existing fragments, then it would suggest that the statistical relations between words capture directly our reasoning about the world.
- EGreg 6y agoWho here thinks some Donald Trump's answers were written by an early version of GPT3, designed to produce more bombastic and rambling rhetoric than usual?
- rusk 6y agoIn principle it’s not too far fetched ... there’s almost certainly some kind of data-driven algorithmic processing going into a lot of speech writing these days; some of the drops are so implausible they’d almost certainly have to have been suggested by a machine!