71–80 of 105 posts
https://huggingface.co/ml6team/keyphrase-extraction-kbir-ins... is a decent tool to explore the constant stream of publications. The last mile still is left to the human.
This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. There is no way to verify, an example is if you ask to summarize a book that you have understanding of the subject, at least you can sense some bs or open up the book at verify a few points. Here you would be at GPT3 mercy
This says more about you than the hypothetical "people" you are talking about.
This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. There is no way to verify, an example is if you ask to summarize a book that you have understanding of the subject, at least you can sense some bs or open up the book at verify a few points. Here you would be at GPT3 mercy
> This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. This says more about you than the hypothetical "people" you are talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people cite these numbers as cynics or to dissuade others' optimism, but if you actually work in the field and know what it was like just 5 years ago, these numbers should be extremely worrying to everyone who's afraid of automation. Even that linked paper from 2021 is already outdated. We don't need another revolution, we just need maybe a dozen small to medium insights. The steps from GPT3 to 3.5 alone wer…
The training data contains tons of false information and the training objective is simply to reproduce that information. It's not at all surprising that these models fail to distinguish truth from falsehood, and no incremental change will change that. The problem is paradigmatic. And calling people cynics for pointing out the obvious and serious shortcomings of these models is poor form IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. This says more about you than the hypothetical "people" you are talking about.
Realy? The “You are projecting” replies. That’s cute
This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. There is no way to verify, an example is if you ask to summarize a book that you have understanding of the subject, at least you can sense some bs or open up the book at verify a few points. Here you would be at GPT3 mercy
> This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. This says more about you than the hypothetical "people" you are talking about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The best model was truthful on 58% of questions, while human performance was 94%." https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.07958
I tried asking ChatGPT the knuckle cracking question that GPT-3 got wrong (what happens if you crack your knuckles a lot). The response was: The sound of cracking knuckles is actually a release of gas in the joint, but there is little scientific evidence to support the idea that it leads to arthritis or other joint problems. In fact, several studies have shown that there is no significant difference in the developmen…
That's only partially correct at best, because joint cracking is not a single phenomenon. For one, there is disagreement over whether the sound comes from the formation of the gas bubble, or the collapse of the gas bubble (cavitation). It is likely that both are partially true.
Furthermore, it doesn't explain the sort of joint cracking in which people can crack a joint repeatedly with no cooldown. I can crack my wrists and ankles by twisting my hands and feet around in circles, cracking once per rotation as fast as I can turn them around. 60 cracks a minute easily; neither of the gas bubble hypothesis can explain this, it is almost certainly a matter of ligaments or bones moving around against each other in a way that creates a snap sound, like snapping your fingers makes a crack sound by slapping your middle finger against the base of your thumb.
Edit: btw, congratulations on the release. This is the kind of stuff I think should be explored more using LLMs. Great choice on making a chrome extension, it's great UI for this kind of thing.
[1] https://github.com/hunkimForks/chatgpt-arxiv-extension#how-t...
This is dangerous because people that has no knowledge of the science would blindly trust whatever it summarizes. There is no way to verify, an example is if you ask to summarize a book that you have understanding of the subject, at least you can sense some bs or open up the book at verify a few points. Here you would be at GPT3 mercy
Edit: [*] 'we' in my comment here is indicating the HN community, not entirety of humanity.