4 ms·

> I find some of these negative comments to be overly hyperbolic though. It clearly works and is not some kind of scam.. It's not a scam, but I think that it i

> I find some of these negative comments to be overly hyperbolic though. It clearly works and is not some kind of scam.. It's not a scam, but I think that it is severely lacking. Not only does the model have very little explainability in its choices, but it often produces sentences that are incoherent. The biggest obstacle to GPT-3 from what I can tell is context. If there was a more sophisticated approach to encoding context in deep networks like GPT-3 then perhaps it would be less disappointing.

mr_toad 5y ago
> Not only does the model have very little explainability in its choices, but it often produces sentences that are incoherent. Natural intelligence is inexplicable and often produces sentences that are incoherent.
- gh0std3v 5y ago
  I wasn't very clear when I said this. I wasn't talking about "natural intelligence". I was referring to the fact that GPT-3 tends to produce sentences that don't really make sense in the wider context of the passages that it writes. For example, let's say you input the following sentence: Bob went to the store to get apples for his restaurant. He needed to cook food for an important dish. Bob came back home, and cut the apples using a ________ Most human readers would think of the word "knife". However, GPT-3 might fill in the blank with the word "machete" or "sword". While these words grammatically make sense, they don't make sense in the wider context of the sentence. Admittedly, my example is a bit contrived, but if you read through enough text, you can find this type of strange writing from GPT-3. That is what I meant by incoherent. Also, by "explainability" I'm referring to the ability of engineers to understand why a model decided to choose a particular word or phrase versus another (in my apocryphal example, this would mean understanding why the model chose "sword" instead of "knife").
  - acapybara 5y ago
    Just put your prompt into the OpenAI playground. Seems to have nailed it. Here's the result: --- Bob went to the store to get apples for his restaurant. He needed to cook food for an important dish. Bob came back home, and cut the apples using a knife. He needed to cut the apple into pieces, so he could use them to make some tasty food. Bob cut the apple, and put it inside a pot. He filled the pot with water, and put it on the stove. The stove was hot and started to cook the apple. ---
    - gh0std3v 5y ago
      I said my example was contrived because I didn’t test the prompt (admittedly I should have tried to). I still think there’s a lack of explainability to the whole model though, and I struggle to understand how we could continue improving these models without understanding how they fundamentally make their decisions. That being said, after reading some more output from GPT-3, it is more coherent than I remembered.
- hoseja 5y ago
  I was hoping we would be able to explain intelligence by simulating it, and perhaps design it without all the idiosyncratic evolutionary weirdness.

mr_toad 5y ago

> Not only does the model have very little explainability in its choices, but it often produces sentences that are incoherent. Natural intelligence is inexplicable and often produces sentences that are incoherent.

gh0std3v 5y ago
I wasn't very clear when I said this. I wasn't talking about "natural intelligence". I was referring to the fact that GPT-3 tends to produce sentences that don't really make sense in the wider context of the passages that it writes. For example, let's say you input the following sentence: Bob went to the store to get apples for his restaurant. He needed to cook food for an important dish. Bob came back home, and cut the apples using a ________ Most human readers would think of the word "knife". However, GPT-3 might fill in the blank with the word "machete" or "sword". While these words grammatically make sense, they don't make sense in the wider context of the sentence. Admittedly, my example is a bit contrived, but if you read through enough text, you can find this type of strange writing from GPT-3. That is what I meant by incoherent. Also, by "explainability" I'm referring to the ability of engineers to understand why a model decided to choose a particular word or phrase versus another (in my apocryphal example, this would mean understanding why the model chose "sword" instead of "knife").
- acapybara 5y ago
  Just put your prompt into the OpenAI playground. Seems to have nailed it. Here's the result: --- Bob went to the store to get apples for his restaurant. He needed to cook food for an important dish. Bob came back home, and cut the apples using a knife. He needed to cut the apple into pieces, so he could use them to make some tasty food. Bob cut the apple, and put it inside a pot. He filled the pot with water, and put it on the stove. The stove was hot and started to cook the apple. ---
  - gh0std3v 5y ago
    I said my example was contrived because I didn’t test the prompt (admittedly I should have tried to). I still think there’s a lack of explainability to the whole model though, and I struggle to understand how we could continue improving these models without understanding how they fundamentally make their decisions. That being said, after reading some more output from GPT-3, it is more coherent than I remembered.
hoseja 5y ago
I was hoping we would be able to explain intelligence by simulating it, and perhaps design it without all the idiosyncratic evolutionary weirdness.