2 ms·
> 2. Clues confuse GPT-3. They should probably have been removed. This gives me the overall impression that the testers treat GPT-3 a bit too much as something
by agravier 6y ago
> 2. Clues confuse GPT-3.
They should probably have been removed. This gives me the overall impression that the testers treat GPT-3 a bit too much as something like an artificial human, and not enough like an algorithm (which will work better with sanitized input). This is not a major criticism, the experiment is still interesting.
Could it be that the marketing from OpenAI it to blame? From the OpenAI front page:
> Discovering and enacting the path to safe artificial general intelligence.
> Our first-of-its-kind API can be applied to any language task, and currently serves millions of production requests each day.
Does that seem misleading?
- cowllin 6y agoI thought about removing those two-word clues but ultimately, they exist for users so I wanted to be closer to apples-to-apples!
- minimaxir 6y agoOpenAI's marketing has been fair, and it's not misleading (GPT-3 can be applied to any language tasks but your mileage will vary as this submission demonstrates). However, OpenAI's endorsement of the demos amplifying and anthropomorphizing GPT-3 as a sentient mind don't help, and it's been disappointing that OpenAI doesn't really push back on that. (the hype is what prompted my rebuttal on GPT-3 expectations, which still holds up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23891226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23891226) I do believe the future of AI text generation is more bespoke, algorithmic-input-friendly models which is what I've been working on as my side project.
- 2sk21 6y agoVery good write-up. It seems too soon to think of genuine commercialization at this time.