7 ms·
@dang: The title of this article is "My GPT-3 Blog Got 26 Thousand Visitors in 2 Weeks", but the title of this post is...not that. Is that intentional?
by Naac 6y ago
@dang: The title of this article is "My GPT-3 Blog Got 26 Thousand Visitors in 2 Weeks", but the title of this post is...not that. Is that intentional?
- minimaxir 6y agoI suspect the submitter is an alt of the OP, given that the submitter of the original article appears to have been shadowbanned. https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=adolos https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=adolos EDIT: Confirmed by the OP (wporr) in a dead reply to this comment (which he just deleted), who is indeed shadowbanned from HN. Which makes this submission blatant ban evasion.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- the_af 6y agoI say in this case the evasion is justified. This experiment is insightful, funny, and relevant to HN!
- minimaxir 6y agoThere's a reason OpenAI added rules for API disclosure: https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/1287773885308391424 https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/1287773885308391424
- the_af 6y agoIsn't that mostly because of the potential for autogenerated text to contain racist, offensive or hateful content? That's why they also mention the content filter. I thought this particular experiment was funny, (mostly) non-offensive and insightful.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y agoThe impression I formed is that the author has an agenda to troll HN or game its automations to get their content to the top of the first page. In any case the above article seems to me to be entirely about bragging that they punked HN. I don't find it funny, just boring, trolly and childish (and not in the good kind of "childish", a-la Calvin and Hobbes, more like Cartman nasty childish).
- the_af 6y agoOh. I may have misread the author's intention. If it's just trolling, it ceases to be funny or insightful.
- drivingmenuts 6y agoIs running e,xperiments on users of HN without their consent ethical or moral?
- k12sosse 6y agoThe HN title is better though.
- wporr 6y agoYep
- Recursing 6y agoThis post has been submitted at least 3 times with different titles, this is the only title that got more than 16 points and more than 1 comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24040450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24040450 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24054863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24054863 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24049094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24049094 I guess there's a reason for it
- DubiousPusher 6y agoYes, this is clickbaity. Can a mod change the title?
- viklove 6y agoHm, is the reason that HN is bullshit?
- dang 6y agoThey've been trying to manipulate HN with multiple accounts and voting rings—which hasn't worked—and baity titles, which unfortunately has. Note how they're doing the exact same thing with this one. GPT-3 is a red herring; the issue was the generic, baity title on a popular theme. Those routinely get upvotes because people see words like 'procrastination' or 'overthinking' and instantly think of their own experiences and ideas and want to talk about them. Such threads are not about the article, they're about the title, which the author admits writing ("I would write the title and introduction, add a photo"). Title plus introduction is already more than most people read, so this case is not what they say it is—which is consistent with their other misrepresentations, including the false claim "only one person noticed it was written by GPT-3". Edit: as YeGoblynQueenne and minimaxir point out, given the other misrepresentations I'm not sure why we should believe that the article body was exactly "written by GPT-3" either, especially because the author describes it this way: "as unedited as possible"—in other words, edited. That doesn't much matter, though, because the salient inputs for the HN thread were the parts they wrote themselves. We usually downweight such submissions, but occasionally we let one through because it seems healthy and interesting to have such discussions in the mix—just not too many. If there was a failure here it was that the moderators didn't look at the article. Or maybe we did; on my computer the title, photo, and introduction cover the entire first screen. Maybe that seemed good enough to let the discussion run.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y agoGiven this new information about the author's practices I'm inclined to think that everything they say in the above article should be treated with suspicion, especially since they accept that a) they do not have ready access to GPT-3 and b) they edited the "GPT-3" article to some extent. For example I would not be surprised to learn that, unable to use GPT-3 for a significant amount of time, they genereated some of the text of the article and then created the rest by hand, or similar. Not because I don't believe that readers on the internet can mistake GPT-3 as something written by a human, but because the author's ethics sound just... dodgy.
- treis 6y agoMaybe they're running a deep con where they're fooling us into believing they fooled us