21–30 of 554 posts
For those responding to the title or first half of the article, you are missing the point! Edit: the comments that are reacting to the article's content are from people who didn't read it to the end, wow.
Or - maybe the commentators are bots too. It's now impossible to tell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Propaganda, advertising, and politics (arguably all the same thing) absolutely have access to the funds for this. Facebook and Google, the biggest investors in state of the art ML are advertising companies. Their customers have the funds to do this independently.
Giving certain people, highly visible on social media, pre-public access to the model, and letting them cherry pick their completions to post without the prompt or amount of tries, is a smart form of propaganda/hype building/PR management, that we have come to expect from "GPT-2 is too dangerous to release" openAI Sometimes I forget that, while this model was created by scientists, and released with a scientific pape…
Sure, but this is akin to seeing bad science journalism and tarring the science itself with the same brush. GPT-3 still factually has certain properties, independently of anyone making grandiose assertions about those properties.
What those properties are, we can only say slightly—e.g. we know it’s capable of generating certain texts eventually, among an unbounded corpus of other texts it may have generated that were then human-discarded. But the fact that it can generate those texts at all—faster than brute-force, I mean—is an interesting fact on its own, worthy of scrutiny independent of whatever airier claims are being made.
Oh man. I don’t know where to begin. I’ll just say that this analysis is predicated on someone who thinks Bitcoin has proven anything in the real world. We’re way past BTC being a subculture experiment. Everyone knows about it. And still nobody (in the statistical sense) uses it.
I published a response today to the sudden hype urging people to temper their expectations for GPT-3 a bit: https://minimaxir.com/2020/07/gpt3-expectations/ GPT-3 is objectively a step forward in the field of AI text-generation, but the current hype on VC Twitter misrepresents the model's current capabilities. GPT-3 isn't magic.
"Text generation" undersells it a little bit. What are humans except "text generation" machines? Language is the stuff of reason. GPT-3 has demonstrated capabilities that we believed were exclusive to humanity --- humor, logic, sarcasm, cultural references --- in an automatic and generalizable way. It's far more than a "text generation" system. I look forward to seeing what GPT-4 and GPT-5 can do. I suspect we're all going to be amazed by what we get when we continue down this path of simple scaling (and sparse-ification) of transformer architectures trained on (basically) the whole internet.
I published a response today to the sudden hype urging people to temper their expectations for GPT-3 a bit: https://minimaxir.com/2020/07/gpt3-expectations/ GPT-3 is objectively a step forward in the field of AI text-generation, but the current hype on VC Twitter misrepresents the model's current capabilities. GPT-3 isn't magic.
One of the biggest issues is with cherry-picking. Generative ML results benefit greatly from humans sampling the best results. They are capable of producing astonishing results but don’t do this consistently this has a huge impact on any effort to productize. For example I’ve seen quite a few examples of text->design, text->code, with GPT-3 you could build a demo in a day, but the product will probably be useless if…
Personally, in 2014 I had put the odds of seeing human-level AI during my lifetime at around 10%. Given the latest developments, I would put the odds at fifty-fifty within the next decade.
How would you measure human level AI?
Having read to the bottom, the quality of text generation there absolutely blew me away. GPT-2 texts have a somewhat disconnected quality - "it only makes sense if you're not really paying attention" - that this article lacks entirely. Adjacent sentences and even paragraphs are plausible neighbours. Even on re-reading more closely, it doesn't feel like the world's best writing, but I don't notice major loss of coherence until the last couple of paragraphs. I am now really curious about the other 9 attempts that were thrown away. Are they always this good?!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_trap#Barium_meal_test
I dunno. There's a bot on /r/buttcoin that posts dumb bitcoiner quotes, and bitcoiners would keep showing up and arguing with it. So I think the Turing test bar's a little low in this domain.
Personally, in 2014 I had put the odds of seeing human-level AI during my lifetime at around 10%. Given the latest developments, I would put the odds at fifty-fifty within the next decade.
> Given the latest developments, I would put the odds at fifty-fifty within the next decade. thing is technological development is not linear, you can't predict future development based on the last n decades. You can't assume an AI winter is not coming because it most likely is
"Ark estimates that Deep Learning has created $1 trillion in market value so far. " -- we might be headed towards a warm winter
(from https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/01/ark-invests-big-five-t...)