5 ms·
Woah. I never gave it my database schema but it assumes I have a table called "users" (which is accurate) and that there's a timestamp field called "signup_time
by frompdx 6y ago
Woah. I never gave it my database schema but it assumes I have a table called "users" (which is accurate) and that there's a timestamp field called "signup_time" for when a user signed up.
I am definitely impressed by the fact that it could get this close without knowledge of the schema, and that you can provide additional context about the schema. Seems like there is a lot of potential for building a natural language query engine that is hooked up to a database. I suppose there is always a risk that a user could generate a dangerous query but that could be mitigated.
Not related to the article but what exactly is "open" about OpenAI?
- vertis 6y agoNothing. It was a not-for-profit but it converted itself to a for-profit entity and made an exclusive deal with Microsoft for GPT-3 (not sure how it's exclusive given all the beta API users). Granted training your own copy of GPT-3 would be beyond most peoples means anyway (I think I read an estimate that it was a multi-million dollar effort to train a model that big). I do think it's a bit dodgy to not change the name though when you change the core premise.
- frompdx 6y agoThat's disappointing. OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity. Certainly makes that statement seem less credible.
- greentrust 6y agoWhat if, and bear with me, strong AI poses real dangers and open sourcing extremely powerful models to everyone (including malicious actors and dictatorial governments) would actually harm humanity more than it benefits it?
- MrGilbert 6y ago> (including malicious actors and dictatorial governments) would actually harm humanity more than it benefits it? I'm really glad that weapons aren't open source. Imagine every dictatorship would get their hands on weapons. Luckily, it's hidden behind a paywall. /s
- pretendscholar 6y agoAnd now its restricted to only the malicious actors and dictatorial goverments that can buy it!
- drusepth 6y agoThis is exactly the defense I kind of expect them to use when AGI finally is realized (whether or not it ends up true). "Oh, we said we're open but this is too dangerous to publicly release; we'll be licensing it exclusively to approved customers instead."
- derefr 6y agoGPT-3 is the same "tech" as GPT-2, with more training. GPT-2 is FOSS. I have a feeling that OpenAI's next architecture (if there ever is one) would still also be FOSS. I think OpenAI just chose a bad name for this for-profit initiative — "GPT-3" — that makes it sound like they were pivoting their company in a new direction with a new generation of tech. Really, GPT-3 should have been called something more like "GPT-2 Pro Plus Enterprise SaaS Edition." (Let's say "GPT-2++" for short.) Then it would have been clear that: 1. "GPT-2++" is not a generational leap over "GPT-2"; 2. an actual "GPT-3" would come later, and that it would be a new generation of tech; and 3. there would be a commercial "GPT-3++" to go along with "GPT-3", just like "GPT-2++" goes along with "GPT-2". (I can see why they called it GPT-3, though. Calling it "GPT-2++" probably wouldn't have made for very good news copy.)
- marcosdumay 6y agoGPT-2 Community and GPT-2 Enterprise. Those terms are so disseminated that I wouldn't be surprised if GPT-2 could suggest them.
- derefr 6y agoWhat I meant by my last statement is that no news outlet would have wanted to talk about "the innovative power of GPT-2 Enterprise." That just sounds fake, honestly. Every SaaS company wants to talk about the "innovative power" of the extra doodads they tack onto their Enterprise plans of their open-core product; where usually nobody is paying for their SaaS because of those doodads, but rather just because they want the service, want the ops handled for them, and want enterprise support if it goes down. But, by marketing it as a new version of the tech, "GPT-3", OpenAI gave journalists something they could actually report on without feeling like they're just shoving a PR release down people's throats. "The new generation of the tech can do all these amazing things; it's a leap forward!" is news. Even though, in this case, it's only a "quantity has a quality all its own" kind of "generational leap."
- armoredkitten 6y agoYou make it sound as if GPT-3 is just the same GPT-2 model with some extra Enterprise-y features thrown in. They're completely different models, trained on different data, and vastly different sizes. GPT-2 had 1.5B parameters, and GPT-3 has 175B. It's two orders of magnitude larger. Sure, both models are using the same structures (attention layers, mostly), so it's a quantitative change rather than a qualitative change. But there's still a hell of a big difference between the two.
- gwern 6y agoIncorrect. It is still a not-for-profit, which owns a for-profit entity. It is fairly common for charities to own much or all of for-profit entities (eg Hershey Chocolate, or in today's Matt Levine newsletter, I learned that a quarter of Kellogg's is still owned by the original Kellogg charity). And the exclusive deal was not for GPT-3, in the sense of any specific checkpoint, but for the underlying code.
- vertis 6y agoI stand corrected.
- jfrunyon 6y ago- Charity is not the same as not-for-profit - Hershey is a public company. Most certainly NOT owned by either a charity or a non-profit. The only way a non-profit comes into the picture is that a significant portion of their 'Class B' stock is owned by a trust which is dedicated to a non-profit (the Milton Hershey School). (https://www.thehersheycompany.com/content/dam/corporate-us/documents/annual-reports/2018_Combined%20Proxy_10K.pdf https://www.thehersheycompany.com/content/dam/corporate-us/d... pp 36-37)
- gwern 6y agoNeither of your corrections are right, but thanks for providing a cite on how exactly a charity owns much of Hershey.
- jfrunyon 6y agoBoth of my corrections are right, but thanks for doubling down on something that's false with no evidence. - Charity vs non-profit: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... > To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) [CHARITY], and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual [NON-PROFIT]. You can be a charity (albeit not tax exempt) without being a non-profit, and moreover you can be a non-profit without being a charity. (See also https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-nonprofits https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-nonprofits ; and keep in mind that still other types of non-profits are not tax-exempt at all!) - Trust "owning" Hershey's: If you look at the document I cited, you'll note that the trust (which is still neither a charity nor a non-profit!) owns only 5.5% of Hershey's common stock.
- swalsh 6y agoI would love for an ACTUAL open AI platform, someone should build a SETI@Home like platform to allow normal people to aggregate their spare GPU time.
- gumby 6y ago> but what exactly is "open" about OpenAI? Nothing. At this point it's simply openwashing.
- JanisL 6y agoI like this term just because it seems like it's got a lot more common lately to do this.
- pizza 6y agoClosed and open.. ClopenAI
- vladsanchez 6y agoNo magic needed, only metadata. ;-)
- wayeq 6y ago> Not related to the article but what exactly is "open" about OpenAI? Microsoft's checkbook?
- renewiltord 6y agoIt's open in the sense anyone can use it. Until then, models of this power were internally available in megacorps alone.