4 ms·
> So while GPT-3 is truly remarkable in its ability to generate text, it cannot, by definition, communicate GPT-3 does nothing without a human inputting what i
by iLoveOncall 4y ago
> So while GPT-3 is truly remarkable in its ability to generate text, it cannot, by definition, communicate
GPT-3 does nothing without a human inputting what it wants it to output. GPT-3 is as much a tool for communication as are sounds, words, symbols, etc.
Whether it was carved in stone by a human hand or generated on the cloud by an AI, the intent to communicate is always coming from a human.
If you think the text generated by GPT-3 does not carry the right meaning or has "no underlying _thing_ that is being communicated", it just means that the human behind is not using the tool properly. Just like sometimes you use a word that doesn't mean what you think it means.
- lukev 4y agoSo, I actually agree with you there. Crafting a prompt, curating the output, and then distributing it certainly itself an act of communication. I don't particularly like it as an act of communication because the information density is going to be quite low. If you want to tell me something, I'd rather you just told me the prompt! It will have all the relevant "real" communication; anything added by GPT-3 is basically just filler.
- scottmf 4y agoI’m not sure I follow. If we’re talking about turning a few sentences into a blog post then sure, but there are many use cases for these models. E.g., distilling large amounts of text into short summaries while retaining substance is effectively the opposite of this, and is a use case GPT3 has been applied to successfully/commercially.