> Yes, it's true that GPT-3 can spout non-sequitars. But overall, it does stay on topic quite well, as compared to previous iterations like GPT-2. I've heard G

> Yes, it's true that GPT-3 can spout non-sequitars. But overall, it does stay on topic quite well, as compared to previous iterations like GPT-2. I've heard GPT-3 could produce better text than BuzzFeed writers. You could read it without even spotting a difference. It doesn't so much imply GPT-3 is so good (it is good, no denying that) as it implies how amazingly content-free BuzzFeed is. And mind you, there are people working on BF, writing articles and whatnot, and making pretty penny off it. Even more people read the stuff. Maybe we the humans actually need to dilute grains of actual useful information into gobs of fluff to be able to process it well, just like vitamins have different bioavailability depending on which food they are contained within. I'm fine with this conclusion too. It's just amusing to be aware of that. Next thing we're going to learn is that a remote-working middle manager at some large company who's rather good at his job and even has awarded annual bonuses, is discovered to have been a GPT-3 (or maybe GPT-4) simulacrum all along, with his subordinates and bosses alike being none the wiser. Which is going to say tons about the standards of management at that company.