4 ms·
This blog explains some of the key innovations they added on top of GPT-3, especially the natural language understanding (following instructions). https://open
by chopete3 4y ago
This blog explains some of the key innovations they added on top of GPT-3, especially the natural language understanding (following instructions).
https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/ https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/
In the first few paragraphs they show GPT-3 as equally dumb like all other language models that came before it and why they built instructgpt.
>> Here is the summary (ChatGPT summarized)
They present their approach to the problem, which involves using a recurrent neural network to encode both the instruction and the environment, and then using a reinforcement learning algorithm to learn how to execute the instruction. They demonstrate that their method can learn to solve a variety of instruction following tasks.
Some snippets from the blog:
>> InstructGPT is then further fine-tuned on a dataset labeled by human labelers. The labelers comprise a team of about 40 contractors whom we hired through Upwork and ScaleAI.
>> We hired about 40 contractors, guided by their performance on a screening test meant to judge how well they could identify and respond to sensitive prompts, and their agreement rate with researchers on a labeling task with detailed instructions. We kept our team of contractors small because it's easier to have high-bandwidth communication with a smaller set of contractors who are doing the task full-time.
- chopete3 4y agoThe interesting thing was - there were 0 comments on HN when this blog was posted on Jan 27th. It was such a fundamental breakthrough NLU. NLU has been a such a holy grail of language models.
- stevenhuang 4y agoNLU?
- chopete3 4y agoNatural Language Understanding.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway290 4y agoTo be clear there is no 'understanding' going on, and the article doesn't use that word either.
- sebzim4500 4y agoThere should be a rule on HN that anyone claiming definitively whether or not AIs 'know' or 'understand' something should have to define those words rigorously.
- dotancohen 4y agoThe question goes back decades - back then the question was phrased "Can computers think" and the rebuttal was "Can submarines swim?"
- Sharlin 4y agoOn the other hand, airplanes do fly. But I guess that just reinforces the point that language is a map, not the territory, and natural language in particular is full of inconsistencies and fuzzy boundaries between poorly defined categories. English happened to evolve so that it ended up using the same word for the thing both winged creatures and airplanes do, but only living creatures swim, boats and ships and submarines do not. In other languages, submarines do swim.
- dotancohen 4y ago> On the other hand, airplanes do fly. In my language, the verb that airplanes do is different than the verb that birds and insects do. As like the submarine, it is based on a different physical mechanism than are the natural animals in that space. For that matter, in English, what is the verb that submarines do? Surely it's not "sail".
- Sharlin 4y agoSubmarines do dive, but only when moving vertically downward. I don't think there is a single verb for what submarines do, they can move, travel, maneuver, navigate, or operate (underwater) depending on context.