131–140 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know! One day it's going to get so bad people are going to have to deploy critical thinking instead of accepting what they read at face value and suffer the indignity of having to think for themselves.
Maybe somebody could create an AI that evaluates the factfulness of articles.
Related xkcd: https://xkcd.com/810/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question, why is this a problem? Sure, someone may be able to generate thousands of real-sounding fake news articles, but it's not like they will also be able to flood the New York Times with these articles. How do you worry you will be exposed to these articles?
It's not me I'm worried about - it's the 50% [1] of people who get their news from social media and "entertainment" news platforms. These people vote, and can get manipulated into performing quite extreme acts. At the moment a lot of people seem to have trouble engaging with reality, and that seems to be caused by relatively small disinformation campaigns and viral rumours. How much worse could it get when there's a…
Pew Research says 18% report getting news primarily from social media (fielded 10/19-6/20)[0]. November 2019 research said 41% among 18-29 year olds, which was the peak age group. Older folks largely watch news on TV[1].
[0] https://www.journalism.org/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-g... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/pathways-2020/NEWS_MOST/age/us_a...
In my experience, the output from GPT-3, DALL-E, et al is similar to what you get from googling the prompt and stitching together snippets from the top results. These transformers are trained on "what was visible to google", which provides the limitation on their utility. I think of the value proposition of GPT-X as "what would you do with a team of hundreds of people who can solve arbitrary problems only by googling…
>"what would you do with a team of hundreds of people who can solve arbitrary problems only by googling them?" What would you do with a team of hundreds of people who can instantly access an archive comprising the sum total of digitized human knowledge and use it to solve problems?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will be interesting to see the attitude of Microsoft towards this project in the light of their "Microsoft loves open source" propaganda.
I don't know where people got this idea that Microsoft can't participate positively in Open Source, and do that sincerely, without open sourcing absolutely everything. Of course they can - just because you contribute to open source, and do that because you also benefit from open source projects, doesn't mean you have to do absolutely everything under open source. Especially considering OpenAI isn't even Microsoft's I…
“Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches”
Pretty sure that is hostile towards open source? Linux being one of the flagship projects of open source.
[edit] source https://www.zdnet.com/article/ex-windows-chief-heres-why-mic...
In my experience, the output from GPT-3, DALL-E, et al is similar to what you get from googling the prompt and stitching together snippets from the top results. These transformers are trained on "what was visible to google", which provides the limitation on their utility. I think of the value proposition of GPT-X as "what would you do with a team of hundreds of people who can solve arbitrary problems only by googling…
In science, some amazing discoveries are made years or even centuries before some practical applications for them are found. I believe in humanity, sooner or later we'll find some actually useful applications for GPT-X.
One of the ways in which people get GPT-3 wrong is, they give it a badly worded order and get disappointed when the output is poor.
It doesn't work with orders. It takes a lot of practice to work out what it does well with. It always imitates the input, and it's great at matching style -- and it knows good writing as well as bad, but it can't ever write any better than the person using it. If you want to write a good story with it, you need to already be a good writer.
But it's wonderful at busting writer's block, and at writing differently than the person using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know where people got this idea that Microsoft can't participate positively in Open Source, and do that sincerely, without open sourcing absolutely everything. I'm not claiming that. Of course there is place for closed and open elements of their offerings. Let me clarify. In the past, Microsoft was very aggressive about open source. When they realized this strategy of FUD brings little result, they changed…
But why on this thread then, about GPT-3? It's not even their own company, IP or source to give away. But even when Microsoft can't open source it because it's not theirs , we still have people posting in this thread that this is further evidence that Microsoft is hypocritical. It sounds a lot like a form of Confirmation Bias to me where any evidence is used as proof that Microsoft is 'anti-open-source'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question, why is this a problem? Sure, someone may be able to generate thousands of real-sounding fake news articles, but it's not like they will also be able to flood the New York Times with these articles. How do you worry you will be exposed to these articles?
It's not me I'm worried about - it's the 50% [1] of people who get their news from social media and "entertainment" news platforms. These people vote, and can get manipulated into performing quite extreme acts. At the moment a lot of people seem to have trouble engaging with reality, and that seems to be caused by relatively small disinformation campaigns and viral rumours. How much worse could it get when there's a…
Even fact checkers are not immune to this and brand other news as true or false not based on facts but based on the political spin they favour.
Fake news is a vastly overstated problem. Thanks to internet, we now have a wider breadth of political news and opinions and it's easy to label everything-but-your-side as fake news.
There are a few patently false lies on the internet which are taken as examples of fake news - but they have very few supporters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does. For most models, your home broadband would be far too slow though.
What about some kind of sharding, parts of the computation that could be executed in isolation for a longer period of time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where people got this idea that Microsoft can't participate positively in Open Source, and do that sincerely, without open sourcing absolutely everything. Of course they can - just because you contribute to open source, and do that because you also benefit from open source projects, doesn't mean you have to do absolutely everything under open source. Especially considering OpenAI isn't even Microsoft's I…
How about when Steve Ballmer said something along the lines of “Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches” Pretty sure that is hostile towards open source? Linux being one of the flagship projects of open source. [edit] source https://www.zdnet.com/article/ex-windows-chief-heres-why-mic...
I would personally say Microsoft wasn’t necessarily driven by anti open-source hate necessarily, they were just very anti-competitor. Microsoft tried to compete with their biggest competitor? Colour me shocked.
It still baffles me that GPT turned out to be more than a glorified markov chain text generator. It seems we’ve actually made it create a model of the world to some degree. And we kind of just stumbled on the design by throwing massive data and neural networks together?
I doubt we'll ever see a GPT-4, because there are known improvements they could make besides just upsizing it further, but that's besides the point. If that curve doesn't bend soon then a 10x larger network would be human-level in many ways.
(Well, that is to say. It's actually bending. Upwards.)