When is typical Hackernews commenter GPT-3 response bot coming out?
What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
31–40 of 70 posts
Re: What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
#32"Generate text that could believably have been written by a human" is a task we're getting very good at. I'm curious how far it extends towards concrete applications. When can we start using it to fill functionality gaps between the functions of a human-coded framework?
Re: What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
#33"Generate text that could believably have been written by a human" is a task we're getting very good at. I'm curious how far it extends towards concrete applications. When can we start using it to fill functionality gaps between the functions of a human-coded framework?
In about the average life span of a redwood tree.
Re: What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
#34A comment from r/machinelearning: "It seems obvious from the demos that GPT-3 is capable of reasoning. But not consistently. It would be critical, imo, to see if we can identify a pattern of activity in it associated with the lucid responses vs activity when it prodcues nonsense. If/when we have such a apattern we would need to find a way to enforce it to happen in every interaction" And people agree: "Dunno why you…
I'm not convinced that "capable of reasoning, but not consistently" is a meaningful claim. The examples seem to primarily consist of people spending hours trying things, until eventually GPT-3 outputs a chunk of reasoning they could personally do in seconds. Does that mean that GPT-3 is doing the reasoning, or does it mean that GPT-3 is an English-based lookup table and they managed to find a clever sequence of searc…
Suppose an entity will consistently do reasoning well, but only when the humidity and temperature are each in a quite narrow range. It seems like it makes sense to say that such an entity is capable of reasoning. Now, suppose we don't know that the conditions for it to do reasoning well are that the humidity and temperature are in that range, we just know that sometimes it looks like it does, sometimes it looks like it doesn't (and maybe we aren't yet sure if it seeming to reason is just an illusion in the way you describe).
I think in such a situation, it would be accurate to say that it can reason, but we haven't yet found a way to make it do so consistently.
So, I think the statement that it is "capable of reasoning, but not consistently" is a meaningful statement.
However, whether it is an accurate statement is a very different question, and one which I am not claiming an answer to.
Re: What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
#35Re: What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
#36Re: What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
#37Re: What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
#38Images in the article are not showing up.
Re: What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
#39Re: What is GPT-3? written in layman's terms
#40Images in the article are not showing up.
Isn't this a text-only article? My issue is rather with the title of the page, "Tinkered Thinking", instead of "Tinkered Thinking - What is GPT-3?", which harms bookmarking.
Otherwise it's pretty much "garbage in, garbage out".