3 ms·

NLP researchers are tearing their hair out about this right now, since people are posting mountains of GPT/etc.-generated text online with no easy way to distin

by uoaei 5y ago

NLP researchers are tearing their hair out about this right now, since people are posting mountains of GPT/etc.-generated text online with no easy way to distinguish whether it's of human or other origin.

NateEag 5y ago
Well... you can read it. I might be wrong, but so far I think it's been pretty easy to tell if text came from a human or a deep-learning system. Granted, that probably doesn't scale well.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  Most, not all.
- uoaei 5y ago
  That has been true up until very recently, but lately there has emerged an uncanny valley that has confused the distinction between "underpaid freelance (ESL) writer farm" and "shoddy but roughly convincing neural language model" so that you may be convinced the blogspam you may happen upon across the internet may just as easily be computer-generated as anything else.
  - NateEag 5y ago
    Okay, interesting. Thanks for sharing!
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    If GPT-3 et al. are producing results on par with "underpaid freelance (ESL) writer farm" then wouldn’t the next step be to focus only on better writing? i.e. books, newspapers, magazines, etc. Obviously the corpus (perhaps 1 trillion to to 10 trillion words?) will be exhausted by a sufficiently large model so there’s an upper bound.
wyldfire 5y ago
Maybe we should create a neural network model that could label arbitrary text as -- nah!
- Tyr42 5y ago
  That's a Gan but with more steps right?
adhesive_wombat 5y ago
Reminds me of a scifi book where the Internet-analogue is so corrupted with junk deliberately injected by filtering services so that they can sell you the filters that it's impossible to use "naked". I think it's either Neal Stephenson or maybe Stephen Baxter, but I'm not sure which book it was an aside in (it's not Fall, I haven't read that yet, though that appears to have a similar idea).
Kim_Bruning 5y ago
I guess we're entering a new phase of language evolution, then; whether we want it or not.

by uoaei 5y ago

NateEag 5y ago

Well... you can read it. I might be wrong, but so far I think it's been pretty easy to tell if text came from a human or a deep-learning system. Granted, that probably doesn't scale well.

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
Most, not all.
uoaei 5y ago
That has been true up until very recently, but lately there has emerged an uncanny valley that has confused the distinction between "underpaid freelance (ESL) writer farm" and "shoddy but roughly convincing neural language model" so that you may be convinced the blogspam you may happen upon across the internet may just as easily be computer-generated as anything else.
- NateEag 5y ago
  Okay, interesting. Thanks for sharing!
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  If GPT-3 et al. are producing results on par with "underpaid freelance (ESL) writer farm" then wouldn’t the next step be to focus only on better writing? i.e. books, newspapers, magazines, etc. Obviously the corpus (perhaps 1 trillion to to 10 trillion words?) will be exhausted by a sufficiently large model so there’s an upper bound.

wyldfire 5y ago

Maybe we should create a neural network model that could label arbitrary text as -- nah!

Tyr42 5y ago
That's a Gan but with more steps right?

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

Reminds me of a scifi book where the Internet-analogue is so corrupted with junk deliberately injected by filtering services so that they can sell you the filters that it's impossible to use "naked". I think it's either Neal Stephenson or maybe Stephen Baxter, but I'm not sure which book it was an aside in (it's not Fall, I haven't read that yet, though that appears to have a similar idea).

Kim_Bruning 5y ago

I guess we're entering a new phase of language evolution, then; whether we want it or not.