3 ms·

> Several other researchers I know — very good researchers who happen to have been publicly critical of GPT-2 — have not been given access. Wow, this is an inc

> Several other researchers I know — very good researchers who happen to have been publicly critical of GPT-2 — have not been given access. Wow, this is an incredible nasty move. This is allow telling about the confidence they have in their model.

hnuser123456 6y ago
OpenAI never claims GPT-3 is an AGI, do they? If they don't, why should they pander to people who criticize it for not being one? Are there other claims they make, that have been/could/should be refuted? It's simply the most advanced text generator by far. Nothing more, nothing less.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > pander The goal should be pushing science forward, not maximizing brand value. Enabling top scientists in the field to reproduce and probe your work is not "pandering". It's participating in the scientific process.
  - monkpit 6y ago
    It’s easy to sit here and say what their goals “should” be, but it doesn’t change the fact that they never claimed it’s an AGI.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      Gary Marcus doesn't claim that they claim that it's an AGI, so I really have no god damn clue what y'all are going on about here. Clearly, the point I'm making in the top comment is the following: OpenAI apparently restricts access to people -- even very highly respective scientists -- who happen to be critical of their previous work. It's impossible to prove intent, but limiting access for people like Gary Marcus is while giving access to tech journalists likely to write breathless hype pieces is odd behavior that deserves to be criticized.
      - hnuser123456 6y ago
        From a quick search on Gary, he's, in essence, spreading the word that GPT-3 isn't an AGI. Maybe this is useful to laymen to quench fears that it is one, but how should this garner a relationship with OpenAI? There are still people who have access who admit it's not, including OpenAI themselves already. I do wish the model was truly published openly, but despite it not being an AGI, it's already powerful enough to be potentially used for nefarious purposes. I do think there's an argument to be made that we should try to keep it in a good light to further interest in the field. How many more articles do we need like the one linked by OP?
        throwawaygh 6y ago
        > I do think there's an argument to be made that we should try to keep it in a good light to further interest in the field. How many more articles do we need like the one linked by OP? This is how winter happens and is a decidedly anti-scientific mindset. Do you consult with non-technical/low-technical execs on AI investments? If you did, the answer to your question would be obvious. For every dollar Microsoft and VC firms can spend on "we're the best technical minds in the world" Research&Marketing departments, there are thousands dollars in the rest of the economy that can only be captured by ensuring execs make prudent AI investments. Step zero is always deconstructing the hype around GPT/Alpha*/etc.
        hnuser123456 6y ago
        Is a winter not a widespread lack of interest in the field? I would stay step 0 is getting people interested by showing what's possible, and step 1 is showing what's not currently possible but should be.
        mcguire 6y ago
        A widespread lack of interest caused by a failure of a previous technology in the field to live up to it's hyped claims.
      - visarga 6y ago
    - Rioghasarig 6y ago
      Yes, it's easy for anyone with a modicum of knowledge about scientific integrity. Wonder why OpenAI doesn't seem to get it.
throwawaygh 6y ago
Look, they're probably getting millions of requests. At least some of those people who are respected scientists in NLP/AI but cannot get access were almost certainly just over-looked. It was really seeing that even Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis cannot get access that pushed me over the line on this one from "be gracious, moderating access to a finite resource is hard" to "wow this is sketchy".
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Look, they're probably getting millions of requests. At least some of those people who are respected scientists in NLP/AI but cannot get access were almost certainly just over-looked. It was really seeing that even Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis cannot get access that pushed me over the line on this one from "be gracious, moderating access to a finite resource is hard" to "wow this is sketchy". You seem to have changed your stance 180° in the middle of your comment.
  - kmeisthax 6y ago
    Maybe the person you were replying to is actually a GPT-3 comment bot and we're already screwed.
  - dwild 6y ago
    He didn't, he is saying that the previous comment anecdotal evidence could be easily explained by the amount of interest into the project by many people, which can't all get access to it, but then show how this same explanation shouldn't apply to Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    I had a belief (assume best intentions unless there's evidence otherwise). And then, later, I modified that belief given some new compelling evidence.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      Are you saying that you modified your belief while writing your comment, or that you rewrote your posted comment after changing your mind?
visarga 6y ago
GPT-3 is what it is no matter who got invited to the beta. I have personally tried it and it clearly is above any language model up to date, and made me seriously consider prompt programming as an emerging field. What I would like to see next is: to extend the corpus with task specific data where available, making it more performant on these specific tasks; to have a searchable memory module (ability to retrieve text from its corpus or new text additions); to enlarge its context window; to enlarge the corpus, including more non-english content; to be trained on more than just text: images, audio and video, for grounding. It also needs a leash - a second model to stop it from generating profanity or insulting things and better ability to control the expected size and format of the generated text: dialogue, article, novel, etc.

hnuser123456 6y ago

OpenAI never claims GPT-3 is an AGI, do they? If they don't, why should they pander to people who criticize it for not being one? Are there other claims they make, that have been/could/should be refuted? It's simply the most advanced text generator by far. Nothing more, nothing less.

throwawaygh 6y ago
> pander The goal should be pushing science forward, not maximizing brand value. Enabling top scientists in the field to reproduce and probe your work is not "pandering". It's participating in the scientific process.
- monkpit 6y ago
  It’s easy to sit here and say what their goals “should” be, but it doesn’t change the fact that they never claimed it’s an AGI.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    Gary Marcus doesn't claim that they claim that it's an AGI, so I really have no god damn clue what y'all are going on about here. Clearly, the point I'm making in the top comment is the following: OpenAI apparently restricts access to people -- even very highly respective scientists -- who happen to be critical of their previous work. It's impossible to prove intent, but limiting access for people like Gary Marcus is while giving access to tech journalists likely to write breathless hype pieces is odd behavior that deserves to be criticized.
    - hnuser123456 6y ago
      From a quick search on Gary, he's, in essence, spreading the word that GPT-3 isn't an AGI. Maybe this is useful to laymen to quench fears that it is one, but how should this garner a relationship with OpenAI? There are still people who have access who admit it's not, including OpenAI themselves already. I do wish the model was truly published openly, but despite it not being an AGI, it's already powerful enough to be potentially used for nefarious purposes. I do think there's an argument to be made that we should try to keep it in a good light to further interest in the field. How many more articles do we need like the one linked by OP?
      - throwawaygh 6y ago
        > I do think there's an argument to be made that we should try to keep it in a good light to further interest in the field. How many more articles do we need like the one linked by OP? This is how winter happens and is a decidedly anti-scientific mindset. Do you consult with non-technical/low-technical execs on AI investments? If you did, the answer to your question would be obvious. For every dollar Microsoft and VC firms can spend on "we're the best technical minds in the world" Research&Marketing departments, there are thousands dollars in the rest of the economy that can only be captured by ensuring execs make prudent AI investments. Step zero is always deconstructing the hype around GPT/Alpha*/etc.
        hnuser123456 6y ago
        Is a winter not a widespread lack of interest in the field? I would stay step 0 is getting people interested by showing what's possible, and step 1 is showing what's not currently possible but should be.
        mcguire 6y ago
        A widespread lack of interest caused by a failure of a previous technology in the field to live up to it's hyped claims.
    - visarga 6y ago
  - Rioghasarig 6y ago
    Yes, it's easy for anyone with a modicum of knowledge about scientific integrity. Wonder why OpenAI doesn't seem to get it.

throwawaygh 6y ago

Look, they're probably getting millions of requests. At least some of those people who are respected scientists in NLP/AI but cannot get access were almost certainly just over-looked. It was really seeing that even Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis cannot get access that pushed me over the line on this one from "be gracious, moderating access to a finite resource is hard" to "wow this is sketchy".

webmaven 6y ago
> Look, they're probably getting millions of requests. At least some of those people who are respected scientists in NLP/AI but cannot get access were almost certainly just over-looked. It was really seeing that even Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis cannot get access that pushed me over the line on this one from "be gracious, moderating access to a finite resource is hard" to "wow this is sketchy". You seem to have changed your stance 180° in the middle of your comment.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  Maybe the person you were replying to is actually a GPT-3 comment bot and we're already screwed.
- dwild 6y ago
  He didn't, he is saying that the previous comment anecdotal evidence could be easily explained by the amount of interest into the project by many people, which can't all get access to it, but then show how this same explanation shouldn't apply to Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  I had a belief (assume best intentions unless there's evidence otherwise). And then, later, I modified that belief given some new compelling evidence.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    Are you saying that you modified your belief while writing your comment, or that you rewrote your posted comment after changing your mind?

visarga 6y ago

GPT-3 is what it is no matter who got invited to the beta. I have personally tried it and it clearly is above any language model up to date, and made me seriously consider prompt programming as an emerging field. What I would like to see next is: to extend the corpus with task specific data where available, making it more performant on these specific tasks; to have a searchable memory module (ability to retrieve text from its corpus or new text additions); to enlarge its context window; to enlarge the corpus, including more non-english content; to be trained on more than just text: images, audio and video, for grounding. It also needs a leash - a second model to stop it from generating profanity or insulting things and better ability to control the expected size and format of the generated text: dialogue, article, novel, etc.