301–310 of 554 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many attempts did it take or did you just choose the first one? I have to admit, this is passing my turing test...
Really? I got about halfway through and realized that the comment had no point . If you tried to summarize what it was arguing, beyond the first sentence, I don't think you could make a coherent summary. Maybe the real lesson is we don't expect human-written comments on discussion fora to be particularly coherent....
Prediction: GPT-3 and it’s subsequent iterations will eventually take away Google’s dominance in Search. In fact we may not have text based search as we know it in 2030. I could use this to churn out blog posts and content pages by the dozen on any and every subject, which is basically how search engines rank content these days. Will Google ever be able to tell the difference between gpt-3 text and human text? Or wil…
> Prediction: GPT-3 and it’s subsequent iterations will eventually take away Google’s dominance in Search. In fact we may not have text based search as we know it in 2030. Google has been focussed on a future without text-based search for a long time, focussed on personalized predictive search. > Will Google ever be able to tell the difference between gpt-3 text and human text? Will it ever need to? What it needs to…
I can’t tell if the headline is saying GPT-3 will be a big deal, or people will think there’s something huge there but there’s actually nothing. Bitcoin hasn’t disrupted anything.
Zero mention of Ethics so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to disagree with this perspective and reiterate my original position: language is sentience. And to be fair, reasonable people stake out positions on both sides of this debate: I'm not claiming that the alternative proposition is somehow unreasonable. It's a legitimate subject of scholarly disagreement. Nevertheless, I'm still firm on language. Why? Because all complexity is ultimately about symbolic manipulat…
I think you only need language to communicate, it’s not necessary in order to think. Do you agree that a human that grows up in isolation probably won’t develop a language? Would you say such a human isn’t sentient? I think as highly social beings we often annotate all of our thoughts with the language we could use to communicate them, which could lead us to believe that the thoughts are indistinguishable from the la…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPT-3 is a neat party trick. But the things that'll be done with web archives* in the next 20y will make it look like the PDP-8. ~love, a web archivist * GPT-3 is trained on one
The transformer model as presented in GPT-3 may be a few tweaks away from a human-acceptable reasoning, at which point we may realize that human brain is just a neat party trick as well. This may come difficult for some people to internalize, especially those who understand the technology in depth. Because it means that the medium of our reality is the consciousness.
I could tell this was GPT-3 because it reads like SEO-style sentence structure :/ > I imagine that similar results can be obtained by republishing GPT-3’s outputs to other message boards, blogs, and social media. I actually wrote a bit about this scenario and how it could explode comment sections to stonewall topics, which I'm calling Commentdämmerung: https://simonsarris.com/commentdammerung Still, I think a lot of…
I suspect we'll see this in full effect sooner rather than later with the election upon us on the US.
Can something be trained to detect gpt-3 and things like it?
- translation
- sports writing based on a play by play
- stock market summaries
- SEO blogspam
- Customer support chatbot
This is horrifying and whenever someone (in this thread and many others) exclaim how this is "cool" and "exciting" I picture a 13 year old boy out with his mate in the woods saying that after firing three 9mm rounds into a tree just after stealing his fathers gun. That is not to disparage these posters, this is quite obviously in a naive sense a "cool" piece of technology but the ramifications in todays already extre…
What I've never quite gotten is, what's really the risk people are seeing? GPT-2 specifically I remember a great deal of handwringing (or hype) about how dangerous it was. I feel like I even asked this same question here earlier: What's the danger? I hear about "polarization" and so on, but what's this supposed to enable that the bots and trolls and just good old regular people of today don't? Is it just a matter of…
Though to do significant damage in this manner, you'd probably need to hold all media as hostages via mass scale social engineering. But at that point, trustworthiness of the news is a minor concern among all AI safety issues. Then the AI can literally wipe clean the entire planet barring a small elite using via nanobots, bio-engineering and drones. This is a highly likely event as there is a very strong incentive to prevent another AI from doing the same first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If OP article was cherry-picked, the tree must not be very productive. More than cherry-picking, there's the Eliza Effect - it's pretty easy to make people think generated text is intelligent. That text can seem intelligent for a while isn't necessarily impressive at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA_effect
It will be very annoying for e.g. forum moderators to determine whether first user posts are just a bit incoherent, or generated spam garbage.
Bots offering idiocy and idiocy generally has done lots of damage. But by idiocy here I would quite carefully calculated cleverly polarized positions and I don't think just bot-rot would be enough (to maybe coin a phrase).