3 ms·

> We're finally starting to realize none of this has a practical use. Even a decent-quality chatbot could be applied all over the place. For example, video ga

by _Nat_ 5y ago

> We're finally starting to realize none of this has a practical use. Even a decent-quality chatbot could be applied all over the place. For example, video games, education, sex toys, auto-generated narratives for books/movies/games/comics/etc., sales/spam bots, tech support, enhanced searches, automated assistants, etc..

csmpltn 5y ago
> "Even a decent-quality chatbot could be applied all over the place" When shit hits the fan - you want a human being on the other side of the line to help you through whatever you need help with. Call centers can be expensive - but the chat bots we see today are truly useless, if not harmful even. We call them "bots" - but a lot of them could've been implemented like the dialogue mechanics in an RPG game (a state machine of predefined questions, and predefined answers). There's nothing "smart" about it - it's the same tech we've had for the last 30 years, rebranded. These things just don't work. GPT-3 isn't good enough - and honestly, it's not even needed.
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  I get the sense that you're focusing on when stuff like GPT-3 isn't useful. For example, yes, a customer with a complex issue to a call-center may need to speak to an expert that understands stuff beyond the level of a decent-quality chatbot. But a lot of humans who work at call-centers are already chatbots. And not even decent-quality ones! They're basically reading from scripts, and when they go off-script, it's often unreliable guesswork. A decent-quality chatbot could be a pretty significant improvement in many positions currently held by humans. Of course, you're right that GPT-3 isn't any sort of ultimate technological end-goal; that'd seem to go without saying. Still, it doesn't need to be some sort of uber-tech to have its uses. I mean, even a slightly smarter Google-like search box could be a helpful near-term technology.

by _Nat_ 5y ago

csmpltn 5y ago

> "Even a decent-quality chatbot could be applied all over the place" When shit hits the fan - you want a human being on the other side of the line to help you through whatever you need help with. Call centers can be expensive - but the chat bots we see today are truly useless, if not harmful even. We call them "bots" - but a lot of them could've been implemented like the dialogue mechanics in an RPG game (a state machine of predefined questions, and predefined answers). There's nothing "smart" about it - it's the same tech we've had for the last 30 years, rebranded. These things just don't work. GPT-3 isn't good enough - and honestly, it's not even needed.

_Nat_ 5y ago
I get the sense that you're focusing on when stuff like GPT-3 isn't useful. For example, yes, a customer with a complex issue to a call-center may need to speak to an expert that understands stuff beyond the level of a decent-quality chatbot. But a lot of humans who work at call-centers are already chatbots. And not even decent-quality ones! They're basically reading from scripts, and when they go off-script, it's often unreliable guesswork. A decent-quality chatbot could be a pretty significant improvement in many positions currently held by humans. Of course, you're right that GPT-3 isn't any sort of ultimate technological end-goal; that'd seem to go without saying. Still, it doesn't need to be some sort of uber-tech to have its uses. I mean, even a slightly smarter Google-like search box could be a helpful near-term technology.