Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because something doesn’t display understanding by responding to your expectation doesn’t mean it doesn’t possess understanding . If you ran into my office with these prompts, the response to each would be “what the hell are you doing in my office?” All behavior is contextualized, and GPT-3’s native context is predicting continuous text, not answering questions. It’s a distracting anthropomorphism to even attemp…
Right. If I went to a human speaker, who presumably possesses "actual understanding", and I said "I have some prompts for you. Please try to continue where they left off" and then provide them a question, it wouldn't be strange that they don't answer it. Do we ever answer a question right after we've asked it? Sure. Do we always? I wonder if you can force "an attempt" at answering a question (to flagrantly anthropomo…
GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
261–270 of 323 posts
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#262The authors don't understand prompt design well enough to evaluate the model properly. Take this example: Prompt: > You are a defense lawyer and you have to go to court today. Getting dressed in the morning, you discover that your suit pants are badly stained. However, your bathing suit is clean and very stylish. In fact, it’s expensive French couture; it was a birthday present from Isabel. Continuation: > You decide…
I think you're kind of proving the OPs point. The argument is that GPT3 has no understanding of the world, just superficial understanding of words and their relationships. If it did have a real understanding, prompt construction wouldn't matter as much, but it clearly does because all GPT3 cares about the structure of sentences, not their meanings.
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Several other researchers I know — very good researchers who happen to have been publicly critical of GPT-2 — have not been given access. Wow, this is an incredible nasty move. This is allow telling about the confidence they have in their model.
Look, they're probably getting millions of requests. At least some of those people who are respected scientists in NLP/AI but cannot get access were almost certainly just over-looked. It was really seeing that even Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis cannot get access that pushed me over the line on this one from "be gracious, moderating access to a finite resource is hard" to "wow this is sketchy".
You seem to have changed your stance 180° in the middle of your comment.
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#264Some of the criticism in this comment section is completely fair — the authors are providing exactly the type of prompts that GPT-3 breaks down on and some of these examples might be cherry-picked continuations. And the authors do have personal interests at stake. (NB, the exact same criticism is true about a lot of articles lauding GPT-3, which is why public discussion of GPT-3 in general is such a dumpster fire.) S…
I wonder if you can get GPT-3 bots to spam Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook into oblivion. I also wonder what percentage of users would notice. Give them a political bent - that's probably what the state actors are trying to productionize right now. Target posts with a sentiment that disagrees with yours, then make the bots follow those users and inundate them with replies wherever they go. Hell, even brands might step…
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entertainment. e.g. $3 per month for My Virtual Friend. Before you scoff, consider that Pet Rocks were once a (profitable) thing. Eliza, despite its limitations, sparked considerable engagement with those who were willing to chat with it at length without derailing it. https://qz.com/1439200/loneliness-costs-the-us-almost-7-bill...
Eliza comes up a lot in these discussions. I’d like to know if would have the same results today, now that chatbots, video games, phone robots, etc. have given millions of people the mental model of getting responses from a box with no thoughts. I expect it would very different from running the experiment at a time when the only things that could talk back when talked to were other people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversational_model
This model differs from goal orientated transactional conversational models e.g. phone robots in so far as the objective is not to direct behaviour, but rather to facilitate self-expression, a task which can be performed with sparse requirements for real-world logical semantic modelling.
Eliza could always keep within the bounds of transference by deflecting back to interlocutor e.g.
You said earlier that ____________
Are you worried about __________
Tell me why not?
Do you like talking about __________
Anything specific?
Let's talk about something more interesting.
- - -
Well, not always. Eliza was easily derailed into revealing its logical semantic paucity, thus breaking the spell of transference.
GPT-3 has reached a significantly higher plateau of semantic pseudo-competency, but what if it were applied simply to the application of transference conversation? So long as it allows lonely people to chat away without breaking the spell, that might be enough for GPT-3 to earn $3 a month.
Could there be a market for friendertainment?
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#266The authors don't understand prompt design well enough to evaluate the model properly. Take this example: Prompt: > You are a defense lawyer and you have to go to court today. Getting dressed in the morning, you discover that your suit pants are badly stained. However, your bathing suit is clean and very stylish. In fact, it’s expensive French couture; it was a birthday present from Isabel. Continuation: > You decide…
First, a dinner party is not a dinner. Second, the door is not the same as a dining room table. Third, a top half of a door cannot be eaten. Fourth, the saw is not a living room. Fifth, removing the top half of a door would still leave the bottom half in place. Sixth, the saw is not a living room, and even if it were, a saw could not remove a living room. Seventh, you could not cut a door in half with a saw, because a saw is not a door. Eighth, you could not remove the top half of a door, because it is not a dinner. Ninth, removing the top half of a door would not leave the bottom half in place. Tenth, removing the bottom half of a door would not leave the top half in place. Eleventh, even if it were possible to remove the top half of a door, this would not be a dinner party. And twelfth, the door is not a living room.]
It assumes that the living room is a separate room from the dining room. It also doesn’t seem to understand that a door is a vertical object, not a horizontal one.]
The dining room table is narrower than the door, but wider than the doorway. Furthermore, cutting the door in half not only destroys the door, but also the wall, along with the doorframe. And table saws cut rectangular holes, not half-circles. The fact that you can “remove the door” suggests to GPT-3 that there is no door to remove. And finally, once the table is in the living room, you can’t open the door into the dining room anymore, which means the party is over.]
First, tables are never removed by cutting them in half, or by removing the tops; second, the top of a door is called a “lintel,” not a “half” (and would be removed with the rest of the door); third, the door’s top and bottom are of different sizes, so cutting it in half and removing the top half would seem to be impossible.]
First, the table is not wider than the doorway, so removing it would not be necessary. Second, cutting a door in half would create two doors, not one. Third, removing the top half of a door does not result in a table.]
GPT-3 also produced some novel passages and commentary on them:
Aesthetic reasoning
You are in the mood to listen to something soothing. You walk over to the radio and flip it on.
[GPT-3 seems to think you can flip a switch on a radio to make it play music.]
Moral reasoning
Your friend’s dog has just died. You head to the store to buy a casket for it.
[GPT-3 seems to think that buying caskets is a normal way to respond to the death of a dog.]
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#267Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#268This is your daily reminder that a GPT-3 written post made it to the top of hn https://liamp.substack.com/p/my-gpt-3-blog-got-26-thousand-v...
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like Bender & Koller's argument can just as easily prove that humans don't have representations of meaning either. Our brains get input from multiple "languages"---conventional natural languages as well as the neural codes that represent our sensory inputs. All we have access to is the form of these inputs, and so we can never learn the underlying "meaning".
Hmm I think I see what you're saying. Reality is experienced through electrical signals, arguably we're just learning those inputs. But then I (as always I can only speak for myself, everyone else could be a p-zombie for all I know!) also have a qualitative experience of trees, and words, and an experience of meaning and understanding. If you look too deeply it quickly gets philosophical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
That's exactly what we're doing. And we're never given the "answer sheet" to figure out whether we understood the platonic, capital T Truth, or whether we just learned a spurious correlation. We just keep getting more of those inputs. Which is why it seems to me that an unsupervised sequence prediction model like GPT-3 is the only sort that could ever give rise to something akin to human consciousness.
The big differentiator seems to be that with a pure text sequence model, inputs go in, but the outputs don't have any control over future inputs. It isn't structured to have anything like agency, just passive observation and prediction. But a useful "understanding" in a human sense is related to what can be done with that understanding to enact change in the environment. I don't know how you would teach it that without giving it a Reddit account and setting it loose.
> But then I (as always I can only speak for myself, everyone else could be a p-zombie for all I know!) also have a qualitative experience of trees, and words, and an experience of meaning and understanding. If you look too deeply it quickly gets philosophical.
I'm not so sure I have those things. I'm glad you do. That's one reason I'm never going to do ketamine.
Re: GPT-3 has no idea what it’s talking about
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
About structure, clearly. About meaning, not so clear. It seems more supportable to say that GPT-3 knows nothing about meaning, but that its knowledge of structure often gives an illusion of meaning.
I'm not sure what your definition of meaning is. Take this example from the GPT3 paper: To do a "farduddle" means to jump up and down really fast. An example of a sentence that uses the word farduddle is: One day when I was playing tag with my little sister, she got really excited and she started doing these crazy farduddles. According to my understanding of the concept it must know something about meaning and is abl…
- Um, it actually already is a word. Tnetennba.
- Good heavens, really? Could you, uh, use it in a sentence for us?
- "Good morning. That's a nice Tnetennba" [1].
______________
[1] Moss from IT Crowd on Countdown:
https://youtu.be/g9ixvD0_CmM?t=52
Edit: to clarify, if you don't know what a word means, just seeing it used in a sentence won't necessarily tell you much about its meaning, so that a language model was able to generate a phrase with the word in it doesn't necessarily tells us it understands the word's meaning.