21–30 of 253 posts
It's nice to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about that GPT-3 is just a fancy and expensive autocomplete. The hype in some circles about it went as far as comparing it to AGI at some point which is just ridiculous.
Reading this is really interesting: > GPT-3 doesn't have any knowledge of how the world actually works. I think this is a philosophical question. There is a view that, basically, there is no such thing as knowledge, just language (or, at least, there is no distinction between knowledge and language). In this view, all there really is is language, which is mostly composed of metaphors and, ultimately, metaphors only r…
I think the difference between a large language model and a human intelligence is that the human may perform some extra computation to make additional connections on his own. But other than that, aren't we all just large language models?
Thinking the Way Animals Do: Unique insights from a person with a singular understanding. By Temple Grandin, Ph.D.https://www.grandin.com/references/thinking.animals.html
>.... A horse trainer once said to me, "Animals don't think, they just make associations." I responded to that by saying, "If making associations is not thinking, then I would have to conclude that I do not think." People with autism and animals both think by making visual associations. These associations are like snapshots of events and tend to be very specific. For example, a horse might fear bearded men when it sees one in the barn, but bearded men might be tolerated in the riding arena. In this situation the horse may only fear bearded men in the barn because he may have had a bad past experience in the barn with a bearded man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you go into more details where it's useful? As your comment here goes directly against what's argued in the linked Facebook post. Also, if you've found a use case where GPT-3 replaces real humans, what did those humans actually spend their time on? Seems like either you're over-hyping GPT-3, or under-hyping humanity
The humans spent their time building a hideously difficult classification model. Out of the box GPT-3 worked better than the result of a year of their work.
It's nice to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about that GPT-3 is just a fancy and expensive autocomplete. The hype in some circles about it went as far as comparing it to AGI at some point which is just ridiculous.
What evidence do I have that I'm more than a fancy autocomplete, myself? The use of squishy protestations, in lieu of objective metrics, make LeCun's argument rather unconvincing.
No Facebook-login alternative: https://web.archive.org/web/20201027134744if_/https://www.fa...
I didn't need to log in to read the article at the original URL, though I had to close a cookie-wall and another modal prompting me to enjoy Facebook better by signing in. Edit: in Ireland, on Firefox desktop
Facebook seems to put different restrictions depending on where you live. I'm based in Western Europe and never been able to read anything from Facebook without logging in. Same for Instagram.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you go into more details where it's useful? As your comment here goes directly against what's argued in the linked Facebook post. Also, if you've found a use case where GPT-3 replaces real humans, what did those humans actually spend their time on? Seems like either you're over-hyping GPT-3, or under-hyping humanity
The humans spent their time building a hideously difficult classification model. Out of the box GPT-3 worked better than the result of a year of their work.
Always surprising what people expect from ML!
I'm sure his group has done some rigorous research that I can't even understand. But in my experience, the few-shot learner attribute of GPT-3 makes it insanely useful. We have already found several use cases for it, one of which replaces 2 ML engineers. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's pretty good at many things, and REALLY easy to use.