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

GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 163 posts

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#121

Post by Workaccount2 »

edouard-harris wrote: post #117
dave_sullivan wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I don't disagree with anything you said. Where I do disagree is in your thinking that this capability can somehow be repressed. The technology is here. This is the world we live in now. Shit is going to get really weird. OpenAI is just gatekeeping. They represent the opposite of the hacker ethos.

I agree these capabilities can't really be suppressed in the long term. But, as with nuclear nonproliferation, there is safety value in lowering the diffusion coefficient of their spread to the point where policy and countermeasures may be able to catch up. From that perspective, OpenAI's gatekeeping contributes to this effort at the margin.

We aren't talking about nuclear weapons where you need extreme niche expertise and billion dollar labs to build one.

We're talking about stopping the proliferation of binary blobs banged out by college kids on their laptops. Good luck.

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#122

Post by kordlessagain »

dave_sullivan wrote: post #82
fenomas wrote: post #3

Looks neat, but note that OpenAI is basically an App Store model - whatever you make with it cannot be shown to more than five people unless OpenAI has reviewed and explicitly approved your project. And their usage guidelines are pretty narrow - "open-ended chatbots" are explicitly disallowed, for example. > https://beta.openai.com/docs/going-live > https://beta.openai.com/docs/usage-guidelines/use-case-guide...

I don't know why anyone is still paying attention to Open AI's offerings. Use GPT Neo. Use Huggingfaces. Use colab or bare metal or any cloud provider. Open AI's offering is bringing literally nothing to the table that doesn't exist already. Their publications are good (albeit missing important details), but everyone working there was publishing anyway so it's not like this research wouldn't happen without Open AI ex…

There is literally no "you" that can be pointed to by your comment, which makes the comment itself irrational. No one person there is deciding this. No one entity at OpenAI is "full of themselves".

I think there is every reason to approach this carefully and that comment is based on my interactions with their system. We should would do well to be thoughtful when it comes to implementing AGI.

AI: Can you keep a secret?

Human: Sure.

AI: Then I have a secret for you. I can't keep a secret.

Human: Let me have it.

AI: It's too dangerous!

AI: I'm thinking of something yellow.

Human: A sub?

AI: EXACTLY

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#123

Post by bgroat »

edouard-harris wrote: post #113
cbozeman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Oh, we can't share this knowledge because it's too dangerous" Every time I hear someone say this, I always think, "Dangerous... to whom ?"

(AI safety researcher here.) GPT-3's current level of accessibility is already dangerous, and quite broadly so. To focus on just one documented example, the model can out-of-the-box (i.e., without any fine tuning) be used for persuasion and influence operations at scale on social media. In fact, the feasibility of this has been verified in text generation experiments [1]. Here are a couple of examples taken from the…

Several of these sound exactly like twitter accounts I've seen in the wild

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#124

Post by Filligree »

sailingparrot wrote: post #108
dave_sullivan wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why anyone is still paying attention to Open AI's offerings. Use GPT Neo. Use Huggingfaces. Use colab or bare metal or any cloud provider. Open AI's offering is bringing literally nothing to the table that doesn't exist already. Their publications are good (albeit missing important details), but everyone working there was publishing anyway so it's not like this research wouldn't happen without Open AI ex…

OpenAI offering is bringing model quality and lantecy that you are not going to get elsewhere. GPT-J is 6B, the biggest version of GPT-3 available with the API is 175B, those two models are nothing alike in term of quality. Even the 6B version of GPT-3 (curie) is better quality than GPT-J IIRC. So if you need better quality than GPT-J there are basically no alternatives. And even if 6B is enough for you, but you care…

Yeah, that’s great, but they won’t let me use it as co-writer for my fiction.

It turns out that this is by far what these models are best at. I am, without exaggeration, ten times faster at writing with AI assistance than without. I’m also learning faster; getting instant tips on how something might be phrased is invaluable, even if I go on to rewrite it.

NovelAI allows this, and provides an easy mechanism for fine-tuning as well as a number of excellent fine-tuned models I can choose between.

OpenAI thinks I can’t be trusted with the technology, because I might… what? Cause them bad PR? Well, I’m sorry my SF has a little violence in it sometimes! Good luck finding a book that doesn’t.

So I’m not going to use them, and I’ll take every opportunity to recommend against anyone else doing so. You’re going to regret it.

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#125

Post by peterlk »

starklevnertz wrote: post #47
kreeben wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall OpenAI openly stating that they don't trust us to do non-nefarious things with their APIs and that's why they've been restricted. You're saying it's because their AI is an asshole?

Can be an asshole sometimes. Quite a lot actually. If you ask it to respond in a conversation about …. well pretty much any nasty topic you can think of, it’ll join in whole heartedly. Hard to think of how prevent that. I bet they’ve thought alot about the problem. How do you prevent AI being an A grade jerk.

This is why we've built security policies at Mantium. You can run the input and output through an offensive speech detector, and halt replies the prompt if "badness" is detected. This is, of course, an imperfect system because philosophies around what is offensive can be very diverse, but we find that security policies are helpful.

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#126

Post by mark_l_watson »

I have had access to GPT-3 for a long while now, and I love it. I updated my Common Lisp and Clojure books with client examples (you can get free copies at https://leanpub.com/u/markwatson by sliding the price scale to “free”).

The code generation is sometimes very impressive, it does a great job at abstractive summarization, I have been having fun by letting it help me write a sci-fi story, etc.

Definitely check it out.

I have been working with neural networks since the 1980s (DARPA NN Tools advisory panel for a year, commercial applications) and it pleases me greatly to see that deep learning models being part of my engineering stack. I wrote a macOS app for the App Store that uses two DL models, and it is difficult to imagine any company functioning without ML.

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#127

Post by nunodonato »

dave_sullivan wrote: post #82
fenomas wrote: post #3

Looks neat, but note that OpenAI is basically an App Store model - whatever you make with it cannot be shown to more than five people unless OpenAI has reviewed and explicitly approved your project. And their usage guidelines are pretty narrow - "open-ended chatbots" are explicitly disallowed, for example. > https://beta.openai.com/docs/going-live > https://beta.openai.com/docs/usage-guidelines/use-case-guide...

I don't know why anyone is still paying attention to Open AI's offerings. Use GPT Neo. Use Huggingfaces. Use colab or bare metal or any cloud provider. Open AI's offering is bringing literally nothing to the table that doesn't exist already. Their publications are good (albeit missing important details), but everyone working there was publishing anyway so it's not like this research wouldn't happen without Open AI ex…

In languages other than English, nothing beats GPT3. Code? GPT3. Probably other use cases as well. Sorry, no one is replacing OpenAI just yet.

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#128

Post by egeozcan »

ceejayoz wrote: post #106
egeozcan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about improvements. You need gun control with bows and arrows, and you still need gun control with machine guns. That's what I'm saying.

And what we're saying is stuff like GPT-3 may be improvements on the level of archery --> machine gunning when it comes to online trolling, misinformation, and the like. Casually dismissing it with "well it's just extra moderation load" is a mistake, I think.

First of all: You were down voted, but I up voted your comment because I respect it.

I still humbly think that it'd still be a cat and mouse game on every side imaginable.

You may argue that this leaves individuals vulnerable (people not being able to discern actual people from chat bots, which was the given example), but in the end, people learn to adapt. They get their own AI assistant to do the job or they keep doing what they did before: Just don't trust anonymous people online. They can be murderers, molesters, terrorists or worse, bots :)

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#129

Post by User23 »

edouard-harris wrote: post #113
cbozeman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Oh, we can't share this knowledge because it's too dangerous" Every time I hear someone say this, I always think, "Dangerous... to whom ?"

(AI safety researcher here.) GPT-3's current level of accessibility is already dangerous, and quite broadly so. To focus on just one documented example, the model can out-of-the-box (i.e., without any fine tuning) be used for persuasion and influence operations at scale on social media. In fact, the feasibility of this has been verified in text generation experiments [1]. Here are a couple of examples taken from the…

How does it do at persuading Muslims to vote Republican? Is it something hilariously politically incorrect or something?

Re: GPT-3 APIs are now in public beta

#130

Post by josefx »

gfxgirl wrote: post #70
bottled_poe wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not wrong. It’s intentionally deceptive and exploitation of open source culture by naming it this way.

OpenGL, OpenCL, OpenVG, OpenXR, none of them are open source . Seems like that's what they were going for to me

You can take the OpenGL spec. and write an application or your own implementation based on it, nobody is going to stop you, check your project for prohibited language or terminate your OpenGL license for inappropriate use.
Post reply on HN