Things may have changed over the past 5 years or so.
Things may have changed over the past 5 weeks or so with GPT-3.
Things may have changed over the past 5 weeks or so with GPT-3.
Sure it's cool, but what problem is it solving? As far as I can tell the only useful function it has is polluting the internet with pseudo-intellectual comments to promote some agenda (likely political). So now that I think about it, it actually would be incredibly valuable for things like subverting democracy.
I'm still waiting for AI to figure out self-driving cars, natural language processing, and other "holy grail" problems that researchers have been chipping away at for decades but we are still a long way from having "solved" them.
Also in the case of self-driving cars, there is actually a very serious problem of it being difficult to guarantee safety. You can't tie every input to every output to demonstrate how it will behave (it is way, way, wayyyyyyyy too big for that), so you have to show statistically by driving so many miles that it's better. Which is still sound from an engineering perspective! But it leads to things like Teslas driving into trucks parked sideways across the road because the engineers simply never predicted it would ever happen. And now it's happened multiple times!
What is "meaningful"? Honest question. Isn't meaning assigned by a reader? If I'm reading poetry generated by GPT-3 and I like it just as much as poetry written by a human poet, does it make it meaningful? What if I finetune GPT-3 (or the bigger next gen version) on every scientific paper ever written, and as a result it generates a novel idea that turns out to be valid and useful, should I care if it happened by accident, or without "understanding"? Can the knowledge encoded in the model parameters be interpreted as some form of understanding? If no, why not? What's missing exactly? What is different from how human scientists operate?
It seems to me the simplest way to decide whether or not something is meaningful (in this context) is whether or not the author (which is the algorithm GPT-3) can respond to criticisms against its own argument in a coherent way. In which case it has to get lucky twice, so it's that much less likely to happen randomly. If the author cannot respond to comments in a comprehensible manner, it's hard to defend the author.
I'm not sure about GPT-3, but let's imagine GPT-4 next year will be able to do this. It just does not strike me as a particularly high bar to clear. Let's go further, and assume GPT-5 in 2022 will pass the Turing Test (you personally will not be able to tell). What would you say then?
p.s. I built my first language model (LSTM based) back in 2014. Then I built a VAE based one. Then a GAN based. None of them were especially good, so I switched to music generation (this actually works pretty well). My most recent project is using sparse transformers for raw audio generation. Building novel DL models is literally in my job description.
Please don't wildly speculate about strangers you meet on HN.
The Turing test hasn't been passed if I'm the judge. Supposing I were unable to tell the difference between any AI system and a human interlocutor defending the same argument, at any time before 2023, I'd admit my prediction was wholly incorrect.
I doubt very much I'll find a taker for this bet, however. The AI field has always been bigger on optimism than results, as we both know.
However, I believe the models will be good enough to fool you during, say, a 20 question/response dialog. They will definitely be able to fool vast majority of unsuspecting humans. And they will definitely be able to keep track of conversation (remember what you said previously, and use it to construct responses to follow up questions).
Between the vast majority of unsuspecting humans and me there is a considerable gap. Mind the gap!
The TT ready model I'm envisioning will be trained on many billions of chat sessions. It will contain dozens of preconstructed graphs and will dynamically construct dozens more (personality graph, common sense knowledge graph, domain specific knowledge graphs, causality graph, dialog state graph, emotional state graph, etc), it will have a bunch of emotion detectors, humor detectors, inconsistency detectors, lie detectors, praise detectors, etc. It will have the ability to query external sources (e.g. google search --> web page parsing --> updating relevant graph). All these modules will filter, cooperate, and vote, providing input to higher level decision making blocks. These blocks will use those inputs to condition and constrain response generation process. This is finally where a language model comes in, and this until recently has been the hardest part - generating a coherent, grammatically correct, interesting text, directly addressing a specific prompt. This part has been solved. Until GPT-2 last year we simply could not generate high quality text. Now we can, and GPT-3 is even better at that. Sure, there are plenty of non-trivial problems left to solve, but I don't view them on the same level of difficulty - some of them have already been solved in the process of IBM Watson development, so I'm optimistic. The hardest remaining challenge is probably constructing common sense graphs. [1] looks promising.
p.s. your questions are so naive I'm not sure if you're trolling me. A human might answer them like this (and a bot built 50 years ago could easily imitate that):
"when and where were you born, and how do you know?"
- [personality - redneck] I was born on a farm in Oklahoma. How do I know what?
"what color, besides red, best communicates the flavor of a strawberry, and why?"
- Red is the right color for strawberries.
"What historical figure does my communication style make you think of most, and why?"
- You talk like one of them big city hipsters.
"Which of your family members comes to your mind first?"
- My little bro Jimmy, we just went fishing together on Tuesday.
"What do you think the context was in which the following poem was written?"
- [depends on the poem] I don't get this poem. What is it about?
To clarify, the common sense problem is a hard one. It is similar to level 5 autonomy driving. That will take a while to solve. But what we are talking about here is kinda like Waymo cars which can drive themselves in ideal weather at slow speeds in Arizona. So in 2.5 years I think the best chatbots will be as far from having common sense as the current Waymo self driving cars are from level 5 autonomy. Which is to say they will be pretty good.
Ideal weather at slow speeds, with a professional human driver throwing road-condition curveballs at you and challenging your responses? I like my chances.
Keep in mind that you would have to differentiate bot's responses from those of an old truck driver, a snobby philosophy student, a conspiracy theorist, a stoner, a bimbo following latest Kardashians news, etc. Lots of different personalities of real humans who can throw curveballs at you during a chat session. I hope you don't expect to only chat with bay area devs? :)
The way that something like GPT-3 tends to fail basically is that you 2-3 paragraphs where paragraph 3 will containment statements that subtly contradict the semantics of paragraph 1. Things like seeing things inside closed drawers and other cues that the thing has no fixed world-model. That's what gives an impression of "meaningless" or "no understanding". (admittedly, I've only played with GPT-2 but this is a description of how texts written by these models at first seem plausible and then implausible as you read more).
It's not some philosophical objection akin to "nothing but a human brain can think".
What is "world-model"? What makes you think GPT-3 does not have some kind of a world model? It's clearly not a very good one, but at the same time it does not mean it can't get better. A 3 year old also does not have a very good world model, what's the difference between his world model and one of GPT-3? Again, clearly there's a big difference, I'm just not sure we know enough about what's going on inside 175B model to make any dismissive statements about it. I'm also not sure what will happen if you train a much bigger model on much bigger data. Things might start to emerge at some scale.
> if you train a much bigger model on much bigger data...
Yep, no one is denying that the potential exists for something to be created that can do something useful.
However, the point being made is that GPT-3 doesn't do anything particularly useful.
The generated text from is not consistent, and apparently fine tuning can result in poor performance (ie. generates random crap). It scored better at a bunch of metrics, which is great, but of questionable practical value.
"world model" or not, it's currently interesting, amazing... probably not useful unless you're writing a spam bot.
What is unclear, is if bigger models will actually solve that or not.
You could argue that general intelligence is also based on prediction, and that a human's world model therefore isn't so different in nature, but there are some very significant differences ...
1) GPT-3's model is based only on a corpus of text (facts, lies, errors, etc) it was fed... there is no grounding in reality.
2) GPT-3 is only a passive model - it's not an agent that can act or in any way attempt to validate or augment it's world model.
3) GPT-3 is architecturally a language model .. it can get better with better or more data, but it's never going to be more than a language model.
The difference between a 3-year old's brain and GPT-3 is that the 3-year old's brain is not a one-trick pony ... it's a complex cognitive architecture, honed by millions of years evolution, capable of performing a whole range of tasks, not just language modelling.
The 3-year old's brain also has the massive advantage of being embedded in a 3-year old autonomous agent able to explore and interact with the world it's world model is representing... It you tell GPT-3 pigs can fly then as far as it is concerned pigs can fly, whereas the 3-year old can go seek out pigs and see that, in fact, they can't.
There's also the kind of meaning that scientists and researchers talk about when they extract knowledge from data. That's pretty different from communication; it's more a process of internal generation of notions and explanations that could later be conveyed in communication.
And then there's the meaning that is even more internal. E.g., reading tarot cards or tea leaves, people generate meaning out of nothing. And then there's Pareidolia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
If you're saying machine-generated text is meaning in the sense of that last category then sure, it's something we loosely call meaning. But it's fundamentally the same as other sorts of cleromancy [1], just more elaborate.
How is this "knowledge extraction from data" process different?
It seems none of this is something new. It's just that you no longer need a good education to learn about old ideas; you can come up with them on your own.
You said above: "There's also the kind of meaning that scientists and researchers talk about when they extract knowledge from data."
So if we agree that in both cases some form of knowledge extraction is happening, I wonder how these two forms compare.
How is this knowledge encoded in the heads of people? Perhaps through the choice of synapse strength and connectivity between neurons?
What is being encoded in GPT-3 weights as it reads through millions of pages of text? How is it different from tuning biological synapses?
Still don't know what I'm talking about? It's OK, neither do I :)
Isn't it good enough, or very nearly, to generate fake news? And if you can generate something that fools a large percentage of humans, even for a second or two, you can sell ads. It would be solving a problem for anyone who can profit from it. I thought the people who developed it stated that it was too dangerous to release widely? Dangerous = useful to bad people, no?
Don't get me wrong. You can absolutely generate news articles with these text generation models. But if you look at examples of the "fake news" generated by the monster GPT-3 model, it's not really any different to junk churned out by supposedly respectable news organisations i.e. grammatically correct but filled with logical contradictions, false statements that can be checked in 30 seconds with a search engine and so on. Most people already learned which news sources are trustworthy and which are pushing an agenda. If those outlets replace their journalists with GPT-3 it won't make any difference. The readers who don't trust them will still not trust them, and the readers who just want partisan cheerleading will continue to be satisfied.
What I see is actually quite different. If the people who could detect fake news was practically infinitesimal then you'd see the vast majority of people having super high trust in the media. In fact most people don't trust the media, lots of polls showing that. Sure they may only fact check something occasionally (often by reading about a topic they happen to understand), but people aren't stupid. After they notice or hear about a few mistakes and observe they're always in the same ideological direction, they get the picture.
This is a completely wrong reading of the situation. Tesla engineers clearly understood it is impossible to determine whether a stationary object is actually on the street or just an overhead sign with the equipment that is available on current Tesla cars and therefore they simply ignore all stationary objects. Because Autopilot is not a self driving technology this is not considered a problem. If a Tesla with enabled Autopilot ever runs into a stationary object it is clearly the driver's fault. It's extremely predictable and since it's easy to blame the driver there is no need to fix the problem by adding the required sensors to Tesla cars.
0. http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/12/human-error-cause-...