3 ms·
I think there is a point to be had that GPT-3 is nowhere near human level in its responses, but is that really the bar to set? It seems extremely high. This re
by toxik 6y ago
I think there is a point to be had that GPT-3 is nowhere near human level in its responses, but is that really the bar to set? It seems extremely high.
This rebuttal asks if a human could continue the slightly nonsensical inputs, and I feel like we certainly could? “... tried to drink with his eyeglasses; his schizophrenia was particularly bad today.” While sharing a spoon with your neighbor is in the realm of what’s possible, it does seem very odd, seeing as there is no prior relationship established to this neighbor. I also wonder what would’ve happened if an actual neighbor had been mentioned before, i.e. a door neighbor. I think any human would then read neighbor as next door neighbor. Would the network pick up on this and specify seat neighbor?
- mellosouls 6y agoI think there is a point to be had that GPT-3 is nowhere near human level in its responses, but is that really the bar to set? It seems extremely high. Unfortunately the hype surrounding GPT-3 (and deep learning before it) wrongly implies we are making great strides towards AGI; it's inevitable people then ask for the evidence and set the bar so.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt's a high bar, but we've had "can carry on a shallow conversation" chatbots for a while, and I don't know that there's a clear intermediate objective.