GPT-3 is (the process of) general AI being born in front of our eyes, catching us unprepared, making us realize that the we may be a bit rigid in understanding of what intelligence really means. If primed correctly, can GPT-3 produce worthwhile improvements to its own paper or implementation? Can GPT-3 be made to prime and query itself in a loop, by asking it to produce a better query for itself? Can its knowledge be…
OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
41–50 of 117 posts
Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "This AI stuff is dangerous to world" It's not exactly that, their rhetoric is: "This AI stuff is dangerous to world if YOU use it. But when we use it, it is good." All entities think that they hold the key to good values, while the others are always suspected of hiding vile intentions.
That's a stronger opinion about their views than necessarily is true. Based on their actions, OpenAI seems to (rightly, in my opinion) view that some people would misuse GPT-3/etc, even if the majority would not.
Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
#43Someone asked for a more nuanced perspective, so here we go. For a lot of AI researchers, OpenAI has been a huge disappointment. We had hope that OpenAI would be the company to democratize AI with good open source work, transparency, no PR bullshit (aka DeepMind), and evangelism. That they would develop in the open, and perhaps even do research in the open. You know, kind of like the name says. It all started out oka…
I don't see how this is a nuanced perspective - it seems to restate the same complaints/arguments just about every comment makes in these discussions. A nuanced perspective would look at the arguments as to why OpenAI is doing the things they are doing. For example: * OpenAI publishes in closed journals (actually conference proceedings) because that is where all the cutting edge research is published and reviewed. I…
:-/
OpenAI started as a non-profit.
Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
#44The problem is that OpenAI's motto is: "Discovering and enacting the path to safe artificial general intelligence." This does not mix well with very common AI tasks, such as facial recognition, deepfakes and deepnudes. With GPT-3 we are seeing levels of text comprehension and response that we've never seen in ML before. How can we abuse this? Well, we can conduct text-based gaslighting and manipulation on an unpreced…
An alternative explanation is that, like Google (and every other company out there), the motto doesn't reflect their actual objectives.
Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this is a nuanced perspective - it seems to restate the same complaints/arguments just about every comment makes in these discussions. A nuanced perspective would look at the arguments as to why OpenAI is doing the things they are doing. For example: * OpenAI publishes in closed journals (actually conference proceedings) because that is where all the cutting edge research is published and reviewed. I…
> At some point a company needs to make money :-/ OpenAI started as a non-profit.
Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
#46I believe, having worked a little bit with GPT-2, that OpenAI is intentionally sabotaging access to their AI algorithm and data. They have started this sabotage with GPT-2 and with GPT-3 they simply didn't open source it. For GPT-2, their repository ( https://github.com/openai/gpt-2 ) is archived. Which is as good as saying that the project is abandoned and will receive no updates. The project already doesn't compile…
I am not remotely in this field, and have not been following this closely at all. With that being said, what obligation do they have in maintaining GPT-2? Did they have some stated commitment that they walked back, or am I missing something else?
>"We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research."
So, in a perfect world you would not only publish your research but also the code that is fundamental to it. Maintaining or abandoning research code on the other hand is an entirely different (costly) story that's simply an artifact of research focused software development. It is typically abandoned.
Personally, I see a huge flaw in the underlying philosophy. This presumption that this specific organization is or can somehow be benevolent flies in the face of all history. With nuclear weapons, most of the scientists regretted supporting their countries regardless of how beneveloant they thought they were.
In general, any sort of concentrated power tends to corrupt. It takes a very special mindset to understand power and refuse to abuse it. I'm not sure this is something that can be easily learned, trained, or you could expect a large group with access to the power to all adhere to the principles of.
Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
#47I believe, having worked a little bit with GPT-2, that OpenAI is intentionally sabotaging access to their AI algorithm and data. They have started this sabotage with GPT-2 and with GPT-3 they simply didn't open source it. For GPT-2, their repository ( https://github.com/openai/gpt-2 ) is archived. Which is as good as saying that the project is abandoned and will receive no updates. The project already doesn't compile…
I am not remotely in this field, and have not been following this closely at all. With that being said, what obligation do they have in maintaining GPT-2? Did they have some stated commitment that they walked back, or am I missing something else?
Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
#48Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With GPT-3 we are seeing levels of text comprehension and response that we've never seen in ML before. Is GPT-3 doing text comprehension, or just generation? I mean, can it extract facts/automatically tag text etc? Or "just" (I know how hard that is!) generate text with some similar characteristics/topics?
Yes. If you few-shot prime it with prompts of the form " tag: " and then just feed it " tag:" it'll generate automatically, just from completion. It does this shockingly well, the paper has specific examples. It can also do fun tricks like condensing a complicated Wikipedia article down to a second grade level, including built in metaphors. An example of this is on the API beta website IIRC.
Re: OpenAI should now change their name to ClosedAI
#50https://web.archive.org/web/20200518081726/https://slatestar...