4 ms·

>It's implausible that GTP-3 wrote that because it knew the actual amount of climbing involve in an Everest ascent and tosses it without comment in a way that w

>It's implausible that GTP-3 wrote that because it knew the actual amount of climbing involve in an Everest ascent and tosses it without comment in a way that would look wrong to most people who read it. It sounds like you're suggesting that if it could get the number right, it would probably also be able to model people well enough to understand they would consider it a mistake. I'm not highly confident of its ability to do the former, but it has zero information on what sort of person is interacting with it, correct? I don't see how it can possibly know. Whereas, it must have the fact embedded in it.

joe_the_user 5y ago
It sounds like you're suggesting that if it could get the number right, it would probably also be able to model people well enough to understand they would consider it a mistake. We don't have to reason with counter-factuals here. GPT-3 just reproduces language. It isn't trained to be right, it's trained to predict and reproduce language so it has no incentive to be right. And the pattern of saying something correct but wound-sounding is quire rare in my experience. Most people who do that do it by accident as well I think. It also has no model of people and it knows no numbers. Everything it spits out is response to context, which does allow to seem to model people and seem to know numbers. No doubt, it has an association with some article describing the actual distance of an Everest ascent as well many other facts and misinformation about Everest. It will spit all this out in context.