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

This word does not exist

thisworddoesnotexist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 432 posts

Re: This word does not exist

#192

Post by revolvingocelot »

netcan wrote: post #151
jll29 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers aren't creative; the excitement about GPT-3 is humans projecting something into its output or filtering the small number of bits that appear to make sense, as you say. Neural language models are just recycling bits that humans have said before, they address well the "how to say" part of NLG (Natural Language Generation) but fail with respect to the "what to say" part.

I was starting to write a response, and realised how patterned the debate is. We've been discussing the topic of machine intelligence since the start of CS and points of contention tend to show up in the same places. Anyway, it occured to me that if given 10 tries, GPT-3 probably produces my comment adequately. I have an uneasy suspicion that it might take fewer tries than that... especially if prompted with "netcan,…

I'm on the "if you can't tell the difference..." side, too, but the issue is the "10 tries" and the prompting. GPT-3 has no ability to revise or reconsider or judge anything it writes. We're still safe, IMO, until the main loop goes

     >generate 10 "netcan comments"
     >drop 5 least conformant results
     >reword remaining comments several times
     >reassess rewordings, select best of each set
     >select 1 most conformant "netcan comment"
Right now (AFAIK, anyway) all GPT-3 does is the first one. Think about how a human is creative -- lots of drafts, lots of dead ends, lots of borrowing, lots of revision. I appreciate that "reflection on its own output" is waaaay out of scope for a glorified, omni-contextual Markov chain, but I think we're safe, both from the threat of GPT-3 being "creative" in the same way we are (and therefore, maybe "alive" in the same way we are) and the threat of our own mental processes being revealed to be as merely computational as those of GPT-3.

Re: This word does not exist

#194

Post by [deleted] »

saghm wrote: post #130
kazinator wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only poor, easily dismissable argument that unprestigious is not a word. The un- prefix is a highly productive morpheme English; dictionaries would only waste space by listing every possible un- word.

I'm not sure why, but "non-prestigious" feels more "correct" to me. I know that those prefixes aren't identical in meaning though, so both could be words with slightly different meanings.

[deleted]

Re: This word does not exist

#196

Post by shaftway »

turtlesoup wrote: post #156

Author here! Funny to see this at the top of HN today -- happy to answer any questions (source code is here https://github.com/turtlesoupy/this-word-does-not-exist ) Shameless plug for my other "this x does not exist": This Fucked Up Homer Does Not Exist https://www.thisfuckeduphomerdoesnotexist.com/

The alternate site is particularly relevant to me; the first two words I "made up" were "cromulent" and "embiggen".

Well played.

Re: This word does not exist

#198

Post by andybak »

plutonorm wrote: post #188
andybak wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the small number of bits that appear to make sense. What I find most impressive is just how much of it's output appears to make sense. Of course "make sense" is the critical part of this. It's skin deep - but still quite astonishing fairly frequently.

is it skin deep though?

Well it's certainly fragile and easily lost.

Are you implying some deeper understanding in GPT3?

Re: This word does not exist

#199

Post by skulk »

sdenton4 wrote: post #158
jll29 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computers aren't creative; the excitement about GPT-3 is humans projecting something into its output or filtering the small number of bits that appear to make sense, as you say. Neural language models are just recycling bits that humans have said before, they address well the "how to say" part of NLG (Natural Language Generation) but fail with respect to the "what to say" part.

Spend some time with the slush pile at a magazine... Human creative output is also heavily filtered and selected for.

I think the point is that this slush pile needs to be automated as well before the hype around GPT-3 is realized.

Re: This word does not exist

#200

Post by vinhboy »

turtlesoup wrote: post #156

Author here! Funny to see this at the top of HN today -- happy to answer any questions (source code is here https://github.com/turtlesoupy/this-word-does-not-exist ) Shameless plug for my other "this x does not exist": This Fucked Up Homer Does Not Exist https://www.thisfuckeduphomerdoesnotexist.com/

Should have named it startupnamegenerator.com
Post reply on HN