Conversation

I am completely floored. Someone run a thought of mine through GPT-3 to expand it into an explanation of what I had in mind, and it's like 95% meaningful and 90% correct. I don't think that I have seen a human explanation of my more complicated tweets approaching this accuracy :)
Quote Tweet
Replying to @Plinz
I didn't quite understand everything in your tweet, so I passed it through the @OpenAI #GPT3 API. It took multiple runs and some tweaks, and I'm still not sure I can trust it entirely, but here's what it came up with. I think I understand your point now. Or have I been misled?
Image
To be clear, it is still subtly wrong in many ways, like the diff between GPT-2 and 3, the selection function being a sigmoid, the way solutions are extracted, the idea that a universal algo results from running through all possible solutions, and it's meandering and redundant...
1
97
I still get the impression that it correctly extracts the gist of most of the tweet, builds it into an argumentative structure, invents plausible details (even if they happen to be slightly wrong here), and produces a text that looks like written by a reasonably smart redditor.
6
166
So, while everyone agrees that GPT-3 does not understand anything quite yet, at least it understands me better than my followers. What a bummer :)
4
63
Show replies
It's a crazy world we're creating. A politician with a random thought can run it past gpt-3 and get an elaborate explanation similar to this and include it verbatim in his political speech. What's worrisome is that gpt-3 does not differentiate between noble & nefarious thoughts.
2
10
It's always your own job to distinguish between noble and nefarious yourself. Every side has its Obi Wan Kenobi who can generate as much noblespeak as you want.
2
30
Show replies
Show replies