Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Amazing how a very costly to train system using billions of neural nodes on millions of dollars of compute performs more poorly than an 8-bit 1970s pocket calculator.

Not sure why people are expecting some sort of "intelligence" to emerge from a text generator model trained on Internet corpus data. GPT-3 doesn't calculate, it pattern matches.

I do get why people might be surprised, on the other hand, that it actually doesn't perform worse than indicated here. Maybe it's surprising upside. But since we know that the GPT is a transformer model, what it is doing is applying a probabilistic best-fit. From this perspective I can see how it is best-fitting data in ways that can provide these sorts of results, especially given all that training data.



According to Kahneman, when a chess pro makes an “intuitive” and unexplainable move it’s just pattern recognition happening subconsciously.

If language models like GPT-3 are “just” pattern recognizers, wouldn’t that makes them capable of intuition?


What's your definition of 'intelligence'? Many of the things GPT-3 does clearly exhibit intelligence (just not human level intelligence).


> what it is doing is applying a probabilistic best-fit

I think you're underselling probabalistic best-fits. Especially with all of the regularization going on in training.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: