Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Humans vs AI – A/B testing GPT-3

vwo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Show HN: Humans vs AI – A/B testing GPT-3

#61

Post by air7 »

paraschopra wrote: post #52
mkagenius wrote: post #35

For all the texts generated by GPT3, is anyone verifying that it's not just copy pasting paragraphs from previous seen texts? (like by, searching n-grams or even just googling it?) If not, then its pretty easy for GPT-3 to copy paste existing human written texts and just prove that it can write like a human.

I've been playing with the generated text. It's usually NOT a direct copy-paste (verifying by searching on Google with the generated text in quotes)

I'd like to do that to. Any ideas on how to get access to it to play around?

Re: Show HN: Humans vs AI – A/B testing GPT-3

#64

Post by paulus_magnus2 »

To piggiback a little on the GPT-3 discussion.

I always wanted a "tiered" tl;dr functionality that would allow me to collapse text into a tree-like structure with the most important content on top and filler at the leaves. And please, please package it as a browser addon.

-- rationale -- There are plenty of articles inflated due to autor being paid per kilogram of used ink. Or a book author that was arm twisted into inflating a perfect 100 page book into an unreadable 400 page monstrosity noone is able to follow without mind wandering.

Of course there is a question on how to achieve a working tl;dr - the "old" way would be to manually summarise articles on a number of conciceness levels and use that as training data. Or to use some existing summary services as source.

Perhaps there is a better way? If we could run the GPT-3 backwards (inverse) (^-1 ??). GPT-3 can "produce text" given a start cue, in reverse it would "remove text".

Re: Show HN: Humans vs AI – A/B testing GPT-3

#65

Post by [deleted] »

paraschopra wrote: post #2

Hello HN, As an A/B testing company (VWO), it's exciting to see how much effective is GPT-3 generated copy against human copywriters on live websites. I like to think of this as the Turing test on the web :) The quality of generated headlines, buttons and product descriptions seem very good, so we're hopeful that AI will at least score a few statistically significant wins. I encourage you to participate in the compet…

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Humans vs AI – A/B testing GPT-3

#66

Post by contravariant »

xiphias2 wrote: post #6

I wouldn't be surprised if the result of the next election in a country would be decided by a Transformer based deep neural network. The dictator in my country is already paying stupid people to write stupid comments, GPT-3 is already over their level.

At some point you don't even need to manipulate comments on news articles, you can just make GPT-3 rewrite the news-articles to fit your narrative.

Re: Show HN: Humans vs AI – A/B testing GPT-3

#67

Post by asginionionio »

GrantZvolsky wrote: post #20

Slightly tangential: The GPT-3-generated article that humans had the greatest difficulty distinguishing from a human-written article, with an accuracy of only 12%[0], contains a flagrant contradiction in the first paragraph. > Title: United Methodists Agree to Historic Split > Subtitle: Those who oppose gay marriage will form their own denomination > Article: After two days of intense debate, the United Methodist Chu…

I can read 800 words per minute if I want to power through something that is mostly unimportant. I usually read at 400 words per minute, which is good enough for me to remember what I read and easily comprehend the meaning. I can manage perhaps 50 words per minute if I want to really understand what I am reading, picking apart the argument and revising my beliefs as I go along. All along the way, I have to constantly refocus myself and force myself to slow down, so strong is the temptation to speed ahead and let the words wash over me.

Think of the way you read something that you strongly disagree with. I would bet you check every fact and constantly evaluate the strength of the argument, and I would bet it takes you an hour to get through a single article. That is what it takes to deeply understand something. We rarely read that way.

GPT-3 can write the content-free babbling that C students use to pad papers. It can write things that appear coherent if you don't actually read them.

Re: Show HN: Humans vs AI – A/B testing GPT-3

#68

Post by minimaxir »

mkagenius wrote: post #35

For all the texts generated by GPT3, is anyone verifying that it's not just copy pasting paragraphs from previous seen texts? (like by, searching n-grams or even just googling it?) If not, then its pretty easy for GPT-3 to copy paste existing human written texts and just prove that it can write like a human.

For my GPT-3 tweets, I Google the ones that are too good to see if it's a dupe.

Only 1/200 or so tweets that I checked had a verbatim dupe.

Re: Show HN: Humans vs AI – A/B testing GPT-3

#70

Post by jcims »

mkagenius wrote: post #35

For all the texts generated by GPT3, is anyone verifying that it's not just copy pasting paragraphs from previous seen texts? (like by, searching n-grams or even just googling it?) If not, then its pretty easy for GPT-3 to copy paste existing human written texts and just prove that it can write like a human.

I have quite a bit as I find some of what it generates to be rather profound. Sometimes it's a direct copy, but that's pretty rare. What does happen pretty regularly is that it reformulates existing content. So you'll see structure of an existing statement but with a different topic so the nounds and verbs are replaced. It's quite weird.
Post reply on HN