3 ms·
> seems only good at enabling generative spam and disinformation. That seems overly pessimistic. They're pretty good at generating summaries of text, simple ma
by ch4s3 2y ago
> seems only good at enabling generative spam and disinformation.
That seems overly pessimistic. They're pretty good at generating summaries of text, simple machine translation, generating alternative prose, turning unstructured text into table-like data, providing a text interface over a corpus of facts, and probably a bunch of things I'm not thinking of.
- nvy 2y ago>They're pretty good at generating summaries of text, simple machine translation, generating alternative prose They're not, though. For these tasks they are mediocre at best.
- ch4s3 2y agoI disagree strongly. For the two two languages I can read the machine translations are quite good. I wouldn't count on it to faithfully render poetry or subtle elements in literature, but it's great for news articles or reading a form post. For generating alternative prose, what I mean is using a prompt like: given this sentence/paragraph give me 3 alternatives that capture a particular mood/theme/style. Doing that is a great way to try to rewrite flat or repetitive prose or to shake up a bit of writer's block. It's excellent for turning some strung together facts into an email that I can quickly edit into my own voice a bit then send. You may not find that valuable, but I assure you that other people do. Summaries also work pretty well in my experience and for my purposes. I don't need 100% perfection for every big document I come across sometimes I need a paragraph that hits the main idea(s) It's good enough for that and why wouldn't a text prediction tool be good at that?