4 ms·

I stopped reading right after that clothes comment to comment exactly what you had. If you even provide the simplest context of question answer gpt3 answers re

by bko 6y ago

I stopped reading right after that clothes comment to comment exactly what you had. If you even provide the simplest context of question answer gpt3 answers reasonably [Prompt] Q: What is the day after Tuesday? A: Wednesday Q: Yesterday I dropped my clothes off at the dry cleaner’s and I have yet to pick them up. Where are my clothes? A: [gpt3] A: They are in the dryer. Another give away that the article wouldn't be in good faith is that weird rant in the beginning about how OpenAI didn't share with them research access. I think people don't talk enough about useful prompts and most demos don't bother sharing their prompt. I think people thinking about building businesses off gpt3 see their prompt as essentially their secret sauce. And maybe other tuning parameters, but there really aren't too many. You can turn up the temperature and maybe build a model to score the response or fine tune the model.

jfk13 6y ago
> Q: Yesterday I dropped my clothes off at the dry cleaner’s and I have yet to pick them up. Where are my clothes? > A: [gpt3] A: They are in the dryer. Sorry, but I don't think this can be considered "reasonable". There's a huge difference between a dry cleaner's and a dryer. Which nicely illustrates, I think, just how little GPT3 "knows" what it's talking about.
- dTal 6y ago
  Perhaps, but it's an entirely different category of error than "evading the question and failing to track the location of objects". It did answer the question and it did (attempt to) track the location of objects. It's a much more suggestive response and it undermines the article's point.
  - michannne 6y ago
    It's still an error of "failure to understand meaning", so I can't see how this is somehow less of an issue. The prognosis is still the same either way because the only way to get GPT3 to respond in any "reasonable" way is it limit it to multiple choice and get lucky, which, again, proves the author's point further.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  This seems like the kind of error a small child could make. Doesn’t completely understand what you’re talking about but understands the question and throws out its best guess.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    I would expect a child to say “at the dryer.” I think people want this model to be better than it is.

by bko 6y ago

jfk13 6y ago

> Q: Yesterday I dropped my clothes off at the dry cleaner’s and I have yet to pick them up. Where are my clothes? > A: [gpt3] A: They are in the dryer. Sorry, but I don't think this can be considered "reasonable". There's a huge difference between a dry cleaner's and a dryer. Which nicely illustrates, I think, just how little GPT3 "knows" what it's talking about.

dTal 6y ago
Perhaps, but it's an entirely different category of error than "evading the question and failing to track the location of objects". It did answer the question and it did (attempt to) track the location of objects. It's a much more suggestive response and it undermines the article's point.
- michannne 6y ago
  It's still an error of "failure to understand meaning", so I can't see how this is somehow less of an issue. The prognosis is still the same either way because the only way to get GPT3 to respond in any "reasonable" way is it limit it to multiple choice and get lucky, which, again, proves the author's point further.
mrfusion 6y ago
This seems like the kind of error a small child could make. Doesn’t completely understand what you’re talking about but understands the question and throws out its best guess.
- cwhiz 6y ago
  I would expect a child to say “at the dryer.” I think people want this model to be better than it is.