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

GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 98 posts

Re: GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

#81

Post by dang »

anigbrowl wrote: post #76
happytoexplain wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this criticism a few times, specifically about the example in the article, and it's bonkers to me. What I see is somebody calling the blog post garbage, and another person saying that person was being hostile. In what possible interpretation is that a "very serious" person "shushing" somebody who "saw through the prank"? It's totally reasonable to interpret "this looks like an AI wrote it - regurgitated gar…

The comment sin question were This is either something written by GPT-3, or the human equivalent. Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation. and I think this was written by GPT-3. I think you've misrepresented the tone of those comments, and saying that the correctness of their matter-of-fact opinions is unrelated to their validity is strange to me. It's not just that these commenters said 'this blog post is no go…

Hold on, there's some inaccuracy here. Only one of those comments got pushback, and that comment wasn't simply matter-of-fact; the problem with it (from my point of view anyhow) was that it added a gratuitous insult ("or the human equivalent"). That made the whole thing read more like snark than straightforwardly raising a question. The other comment was more matter-of-fact about calling GPT-3 and didn't get any pushback.

The problem is that the cases legitimately overlap. That is, "sounds like GPT-3" gets used as an internet insult (example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23687199) just like "sounds like this was written by a Markov chain" used to be (example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19614166). It's not surprising that someone interpreted the first comment that way, because it contained extra markers of rudeness. That may have been a losing bet but it wasn't a bad one. Perhaps the other comment didn't get interpreted that way because it didn't throw in any extra cues of rudeness—or perhaps it was just random. Impossible to tell from a sample size of 2.

Not to take away from the glory of lukev for calling it correctly. I just don't think the reply deserves to be jumped on so harshly.

Re: GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

#82

Post by [deleted] »

sthnblllII wrote: post #79
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think fewer people know what the Imitation game actually consists of than think they do - namely that a questioner has to guess whether a machine is a respondent to their questions, rather than another player. That certainly hasn't been tried with GPT-3 that I'm aware of. However I would agree that it is an oblique version - that is, can a machine fool humans into thinking that they are human. In which case I think…

Turing actually asked a slightly different question, that I think is a lot more interesting. From Computing Machinery and Intelligence by A. M. Turing: > The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed t…

[deleted]

Re: GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

#83

Post by maybesentient »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #35
aldanor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was this comment left by GPT-3?

Are we GPT-3?

Not sure if you meant this in jest, but seeing what GPT-3 can do and extrapolating from there - I'm left with an uneasy feeling about this very idea..

What does it really mean to understand something? Is it all just an illusion generated by a fancier biological generative transformer? :P

Re: GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

#84

Post by dang »

nabla9 wrote: post #9

I think GPT-3 could be blessing for Reddit and HN type forums. Add some GPT-3 content and links into the feed. Decrease the vote weight for users who upvote them and increase vote weight for those who downvote them.

I agree with everyone: this is an intriguing idea.

I feel like if we did it, it would be sporting to reveal which comments they were, after a suitable amount of time.

One tricky bit is which accounts would post the comments. If they were all new accounts that hadn't posted anything before, that would lessen the value of the test. I'm not sure it would make sense to have dedicated accounts for this. Perhaps we'd have to sprinkle such comments among established accounts? With permission from the account holder, of course, plus swearing them to secrecy? That starts to sound complicated.

Re: GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

#86

Post by anigbrowl »

dang wrote: post #81
anigbrowl wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment sin question were This is either something written by GPT-3, or the human equivalent. Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation. and I think this was written by GPT-3. I think you've misrepresented the tone of those comments, and saying that the correctness of their matter-of-fact opinions is unrelated to their validity is strange to me. It's not just that these commenters said 'this blog post is no go…

Hold on, there's some inaccuracy here. Only one of those comments got pushback, and that comment wasn't simply matter-of-fact; the problem with it (from my point of view anyhow) was that it added a gratuitous insult ("or the human equivalent"). That made the whole thing read more like snark than straightforwardly raising a question. The other comment was more matter-of-fact about calling GPT-3 and didn't get any push…

Sure, Dan.

Re: GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

#87

Post by basch »

nabla9 wrote: post #9

I think GPT-3 could be blessing for Reddit and HN type forums. Add some GPT-3 content and links into the feed. Decrease the vote weight for users who upvote them and increase vote weight for those who downvote them.

I'd like to see a more dynamic interpretation of this.

1) A form has seed users, extrapolate how they would vote based on people who vote like them but see more content. Use the extrapolated prediction of seed behavior to rank.

2) Let the viewer change who their seeds are manually. Let the viewer rank the posts, and see which seeds work best for them. Make this process and equilibrium building dynamic.

Re: GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

#88

Post by emsy »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #11
emsy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair: it sounds like a GPT-3 post was considered an insult back when. Not sure it passes as an insult anymore.

25 days ago?

Time isn’t the issue here, it’s the fact that people defended an AI as if it were a person.

Re: GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

#89

Post by bostik »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #34
dorkwood wrote: post #21

I remember skimming this article. My initial feeling was that it was written by someone who wasn't a native English speaker. It seems like I'll have to pay more close attention to that feeling in the future.

On the other hand, you could have been right. It could have been a non-native speaker. I'd hate to end up in a situation where non-native speakers are accused of being bots...

You don't need to be a non-native speaker for that. If the other side is convinced you're a bot, it will be very difficult to make them believe otherwise. Which in a funny way has echoes of conspiracy theory believers who take every denial as a further proof of their existing belief.

The first I heard of this was 15 years ago[0]. The original article is no longer online, so the link takes to a PDF rendition. It cites the source.

0: https://msu.edu/~pennock5/courses/ALife/Striegel_Failed_Turi...

Re: GPT-3 generated blog post reach #1 on Hacker News

#90

Post by nabla9 »

dang wrote: post #84
nabla9 wrote: post #9

I think GPT-3 could be blessing for Reddit and HN type forums. Add some GPT-3 content and links into the feed. Decrease the vote weight for users who upvote them and increase vote weight for those who downvote them.

I agree with everyone: this is an intriguing idea. I feel like if we did it, it would be sporting to reveal which comments they were, after a suitable amount of time. One tricky bit is which accounts would post the comments. If they were all new accounts that hadn't posted anything before, that would lessen the value of the test. I'm not sure it would make sense to have dedicated accounts for this. Perhaps we'd have…

You can hide everyone's names for a day or so.
Post reply on HN