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

OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

help.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 205 posts

Re: OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

#181

Post by dr_dshiv »

blagie wrote: post #168
dr_dshiv wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s incredibly good at generating scholarly text. Put in a title and abstract and it will come up with a strong intro that is clear and compelling. It helps me write academic papers more clearly, as a result. Also, great for early stages of grant writing or proposals. It came up with a fantastic conference proposal for me that I spent 20 minutes editing and then just sent, unedited. It will aid speechwriters or help…

I've started asking GPT-3 for relationship advice. It's often... insightful. There is a bit of prompt engineering. If you start your question with things like "As a qualified therapist, what would you recommend to" .... There is also a bit of engineering with the question. I often ask about an analogous situation, rather than my own. I'm not batting 100%, but I often get strategies and things to think about I wouldn'…

> I often get strategies and things to think about I wouldn't have come up with myself

Yes. It’s a dialectic. Very powerful for personal reflection.

Re: OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

#182

Post by stephendause »

ComplexSystems wrote: post #173
lukev wrote: post #169

This makes me sad. I hoped to see less use of language models in the wild; looks like we're heading the other direction. I was recently able to articulate to myself why I dislike language models like GPT-3 so much. Language is fundamentally about communication . I have a mental state, and language lets me share that some of that mental state with another human being. It's quite remarkable, and the cornerstone for pre…

I thought this was interesting so I literally pasted the entire thing into OpenAI's playground and asked DaVinci to write a rebuttal of your argument. Here is what it said: --- There are a few problems with LukeV's argument. First, he conflates the ability to generate human-like text with the ability to communicate. Just because GPT-3 can generate text that sounds like it was written by a human does not mean that it…

The argument seems very poorly reasoned to me.

> First, he conflates the ability to generate human-like text with the ability to communicate.

This is incorrect. In fact, lukev does the opposite. That is one of the fundamental parts of his argument -- that those two things are different.

> Second, LukeV claims that GPT-3 is at its weakest when writing about the relationships between a set of concepts. However, this is not necessarily true. GPT-3 may not be able to generate text that is perfectly grammatical or that makes perfect sense, but it is often able to generate text that is nonetheless meaningful and insightful. For example, GPT-3 has been used to generate essays on complex topics such as the philosophy of mind, and these essays have been well-received by readers.

I believe this is the best paragraph of the argument, but it is also the most difficult to rebut because it is rather subjective. Whether a text is meaningful or insightful is up the individual reading it. I would be surprised, however, if experts on the philosophy of mind found the essays mentioned by GPT-3 to be meaningful or insightful -- as opposed to regurgitations of concepts that are in the texts that have been fed to GPT-3's model.

> Third, LukeV argues that the world does not need more words, but this is clearly not the case. The world needs more communication...

The presence of more words in the world does not necessarily entail more communication. The two concepts are fairly closely related but are definitely not synonymous.

This doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with lukev, of course. I do think that GPT-3 as it currently exists should not be used to generate text that is meant for human consumption without being edited first. I can certainly see how it would be useful as a tool for generating an outline of an essay, especially with well-crafted prompts.

I am of course open to more arguments and data on the subject =)

Re: OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

#183

Post by dr_dshiv »

itsyaboi wrote: post #158
dr_dshiv wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is correct. I have psychic powers, specifically the psionic ability to sense emotions. AMA

When did you first become aware of your powers?

It has always seemed natural (to me) to be able to directly feel what other people are feeling. Most people can. Sometimes, however, it can feel shocking when I realize I’m talking to someone who doesn’t feel what I’m feeling. Or, that doesn’t feel that I’m feeling what they are feeling.

Re: OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

#184

Post by slavik81 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #136
slavik81 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say you're an empath, do you mean to claim that you have psychic powers? An empath is a being from science fiction with the psionic ability to sense emotions, like Counselor Troi on Star Trek. The term originates from the short story "Empath" by J. T. McIntosh, published in New Worlds Science Fiction #50, August 1956.

Yes, that is correct. I have psychic powers, specifically the psionic ability to sense emotions. AMA

Thanks for clarification! I was a bit unsure if that was what you intended. As you mentioned, writing and communicating effectively with people is very hard.

Re: OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

#185

Post by reidjs »

alecco wrote: post #149
cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #33

I lack imagination. What is GPT-3 (and generative text models in general) useful for, other than toys? It can write essays, can we expect it to replace writers for newspapers and magazines? Can it write coherent technical documentation? Replace speechwriters? Edit: looks like the comment thread below is similar https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32554955

Besides all the ideas of well meaning people in HN, I fear GPT-3 (and its competitors) will just bring almost impossible to spot fake Amazon reviews, SEO garbage sites, fake blogs, fake podcasts, etc. And even worse, now corporations and governments don't even need to have troll farms. Just rent some AI, give it basic directions, and let it loose. The Dead Internet Theory will become real.

Most of these seem preventable. 1. Stop ordering things from Amazon, support local stores instead of reading reviews. 2. Stop reading SEO’d sites, go to the source when possible 3. Only read your friends blogs and listen to your friends podcasts.

Re: OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

#186

Post by BeefySwain »

WithinReason wrote: post #177
ComplexSystems wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this was interesting so I literally pasted the entire thing into OpenAI's playground and asked DaVinci to write a rebuttal of your argument. Here is what it said: --- There are a few problems with LukeV's argument. First, he conflates the ability to generate human-like text with the ability to communicate. Just because GPT-3 can generate text that sounds like it was written by a human does not mean that it…

I noticed that when GPT-3 has trouble continuing a sentence or create a difficult argument it relies on filler words to stretch out a sentence until it has no choice but to write something meaningful.

To be fair we have all been there.

Re: OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

#187

Post by lukev »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #180
lukev wrote: post #169

This makes me sad. I hoped to see less use of language models in the wild; looks like we're heading the other direction. I was recently able to articulate to myself why I dislike language models like GPT-3 so much. Language is fundamentally about communication . I have a mental state, and language lets me share that some of that mental state with another human being. It's quite remarkable, and the cornerstone for pre…

> So while GPT-3 is truly remarkable in its ability to generate text, it cannot, by definition, communicate GPT-3 does nothing without a human inputting what it wants it to output. GPT-3 is as much a tool for communication as are sounds, words, symbols, etc. Whether it was carved in stone by a human hand or generated on the cloud by an AI, the intent to communicate is always coming from a human. If you think the text…

So, I actually agree with you there. Crafting a prompt, curating the output, and then distributing it certainly itself an act of communication.

I don't particularly like it as an act of communication because the information density is going to be quite low. If you want to tell me something, I'd rather you just told me the prompt! It will have all the relevant "real" communication; anything added by GPT-3 is basically just filler.

Re: OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

#188

Post by lukev »

ComplexSystems wrote: post #173
lukev wrote: post #169

This makes me sad. I hoped to see less use of language models in the wild; looks like we're heading the other direction. I was recently able to articulate to myself why I dislike language models like GPT-3 so much. Language is fundamentally about communication . I have a mental state, and language lets me share that some of that mental state with another human being. It's quite remarkable, and the cornerstone for pre…

I thought this was interesting so I literally pasted the entire thing into OpenAI's playground and asked DaVinci to write a rebuttal of your argument. Here is what it said: --- There are a few problems with LukeV's argument. First, he conflates the ability to generate human-like text with the ability to communicate. Just because GPT-3 can generate text that sounds like it was written by a human does not mean that it…

> For example, GPT-3 has been used to generate essays on complex topics such as the philosophy of mind, and these essays have been well-received by readers.

That's the other problem with GPT-3... it will happily say things that are absolutely false :)

I think this response actually illustrates my point quite nicely; it is a plausible sounding rebuttal but does not actually engage on a logical level.

That said, I don't mean to diminish the impressiveness here. It's quite evident that it could pass a Turing test in a wide variety of circumstances. After all, it's not like humans are consistently great at concept-informed writing either. I'm pretty sure the majority of undergrad college papers have more in common with GPT than with real critical thought... generating something that looks plausibly like an argument rather than actually having one.

Re: OpenAI API pricing update FAQ

#190

Post by juliensalinas »

grej wrote: post #151
tvhahn wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why bother use a GPT-3 model when you can use the free BLOOM model? Large "foundation" models will become a commodity -- a race to the bottom.

I have used BLOOM a little, and I struggle to get it to produce the same kind of output as GPT-3. Anyone have tips there? It often seems to not keep the right context of the previously generated text.

I've been testing BLOOM for a while and it seems it is working very well with good few-shot learning. See this post about prompt examples: https://nlpcloud.com/effectively-using-gpt-j-gpt-neo-gpt-3-a... All of these examples work great with BLOOM.

But for the moment you can't just use pure natural language instructions with BLOOM indeed. Maybe it will come!

Post reply on HN