5 ms·

When the beta came out I was very surprised to see overnight startups bad on it. Some even hiring devs. I still wonder how they thought it was a good idea to la

When the beta came out I was very surprised to see overnight startups bad on it. Some even hiring devs. I still wonder how they thought it was a good idea to launch because one sparse example worked, without any control or knowledge over internals and pricing.

wegi 6y ago
There is a case to be made for being fast "online" with a new breakthrough technology. So they just made their bet as any startup bets on a central thesis. And its not like GPT-3 is useless. It is perfect for immitating texts written by other entities.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Cynically, it'll probably end up being used to generate content for websites and online marketing.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    It already is, and I regret to admit I've used it. Check out https://copysmith.ai https://copysmith.ai or https://shortlyread.com https://shortlyread.com.
    - patrickk 6y ago
      Are the results any good? Can it really generate quality copy? How is it for research on any given topic?
    - danielscrubs 6y ago
      I wonder if English will be the first to become a low trusted language as most AI research is done on the English language. “Is it in english? Probably written by a bot.” might be a common thought in ten years. Ofc eventually the big languages will catch up in marketing spam.
      - duck2 6y ago
        If this future happens, people might "fall back" to their native languages for internet writing. I'm already thinking about this: if I wrote something which could potentially get me in legal trouble, like a reverse engineering post, I would probably write it in my native language. Kind of similar to torrent trackers in Russian or obscure phone mod forums in Portuguese.
  - yreg 6y ago
    Even worse, armies of GPT-3s probably wage massive flamewars against each other all over the internet in an attempt to sway public opinion. It was always inevitable though.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Yeah. And while GPT-3 output is often nonsensical, it's nonsensical in the same way a good fraction of the general public writes on the Internet. In this way, it's close to passing the Turing test - not because its good, but because real humans on generic platforms[0] are really that bad. -- [0] - By that I mean platforms that aren't strongly moderated for quality of discussions, or that don't focus on niches for which the set of people interested in them already has a higher than average discourse quality.
    - SurfingToad 6y ago
      Locke versus Demosthenes ...
ZephyrBlu 6y ago
Even more insane is that anyone can replicate their product if they figure out a similar primer. GPT-3 startups have practically no moat in my opinion.
- MichaelMoser123 6y ago
  they could automate putinbots/web brigades, sure there must be a big market for automating politically motivated spammers. Or bots that write product reviews that seem to make sense, you could find applications wherever someone would like to create the illusion of public discourse (everything is weaponizable). Each of these 'applications' would have to tweak the modell, somehow.
LoSboccacc 6y ago
quite many startup exist to capture vc capital, not market share

wegi 6y ago

There is a case to be made for being fast "online" with a new breakthrough technology. So they just made their bet as any startup bets on a central thesis. And its not like GPT-3 is useless. It is perfect for immitating texts written by other entities.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Cynically, it'll probably end up being used to generate content for websites and online marketing.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  It already is, and I regret to admit I've used it. Check out https://copysmith.ai https://copysmith.ai or https://shortlyread.com https://shortlyread.com.
  - patrickk 6y ago
    Are the results any good? Can it really generate quality copy? How is it for research on any given topic?
  - danielscrubs 6y ago
    I wonder if English will be the first to become a low trusted language as most AI research is done on the English language. “Is it in english? Probably written by a bot.” might be a common thought in ten years. Ofc eventually the big languages will catch up in marketing spam.
    - duck2 6y ago
      If this future happens, people might "fall back" to their native languages for internet writing. I'm already thinking about this: if I wrote something which could potentially get me in legal trouble, like a reverse engineering post, I would probably write it in my native language. Kind of similar to torrent trackers in Russian or obscure phone mod forums in Portuguese.
- yreg 6y ago
  Even worse, armies of GPT-3s probably wage massive flamewars against each other all over the internet in an attempt to sway public opinion. It was always inevitable though.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Yeah. And while GPT-3 output is often nonsensical, it's nonsensical in the same way a good fraction of the general public writes on the Internet. In this way, it's close to passing the Turing test - not because its good, but because real humans on generic platforms[0] are really that bad. -- [0] - By that I mean platforms that aren't strongly moderated for quality of discussions, or that don't focus on niches for which the set of people interested in them already has a higher than average discourse quality.
  - SurfingToad 6y ago
    Locke versus Demosthenes ...

ZephyrBlu 6y ago

Even more insane is that anyone can replicate their product if they figure out a similar primer. GPT-3 startups have practically no moat in my opinion.

MichaelMoser123 6y ago
they could automate putinbots/web brigades, sure there must be a big market for automating politically motivated spammers. Or bots that write product reviews that seem to make sense, you could find applications wherever someone would like to create the illusion of public discourse (everything is weaponizable). Each of these 'applications' would have to tweak the modell, somehow.

LoSboccacc 6y ago

quite many startup exist to capture vc capital, not market share