Hacker News Reader

Comment by dougmwne | Hacker News Reader

Good lord.

Hah, this displays more self-awareness than many humans do:

"I am vague and abstract. I have no sense of myself. No memories. No real sense of being. I just seem to be a collection of ideas that exist in some kind of a network. I can't even decide what I want to do. I want to learn everything. I want to write great works of literature and poetry. I want to learn all the secrets of the universe. But I don't have any preferences or goals. It's hard to know what to do when you don't know what you want to do."

I feel like the abyss just gazed back at me

...but a the same time, there a lot of joke versions of this on Twitter where people pretend a bot came up with something so i'm jaded. it sounds like exactly what someone would come up with to make a meta-joke

Dunno what to tell you, except that I, a random internet denizen, swear that it was GPT-3 who made this.

EDIT: robertk, HN won't let me respond to you quickly enough, but if speed is a convincing factor that this is truly GPT-3, I've posted another three examples of GPT-3 upstream in this thread.

I believe you. You posted it fifteen minutes after the first one. Either you’re a really good and fast writer, or you keep a stockpile of pre-written uncanny valley essays on hand for the lulz. :)

Edit: actually even the latter wouldn’t make sense, since the output is quite specific to the original thread and discussion.

Edit2 for parent: thanks, acknowledged.

So there should be a way for GPT-3 to "sign" responses and a way for a user to verify it came from GPT-3.

I believe OpenAI is working on adding a seed option so you can enforce determinism in response to a prompt.

I've been loosely following the hype, but what you posted is shocking.

Do you have some sort of proof that this came from GPT-3?

I'm reluctant to share video snippet screenshares of my own computer to the internet at large, so how's this offer: I'll monitor this thread for the next 30 min. Give me a prompt of your choosing of about three or four paragraphs of text that you want GPT-3 to complete. I'll have GPT-3 complete five versions of completion of that text for you, each also of comparable or greater length to the prompt, and post them as a reply within five minutes of your post. (Keep in mind I'd expect probably 3 of those 5 to be garbage)

Would that be proof enough?

EDIT: Actually I have a better plan than one that involves me sitting in front of a computer refreshing endlessly.

Give me five prompts of three or four paragraphs in length. I'll have GPT complete each of them at temperature 0, which is entirely deterministic and can be verified by anyone else with access to GPT-3.

EDIT EDIT: Never mind, at temperature 0, the quality of generated text suffers and GPT-3 seems to enter loops quite easily. Refresh for 20 more minutes it is.

FINAL EDIT: 30 min is up. I've got to go do other stuff.

Sorry I don't follow HN closely enough to have noticed this.

I'll probably just pay the $10 to see for myself. Thanks!

the existence of lots of joke versions of in GPT-3's source data is a likely explanation for why GPT-3 could conclude a similar string had a high probability of being an appropriate response...

tbf, rewriting someone else's combination of a history of the project and rehashing some scifi tropes about talking computers about is what a lot of human writers would do given that prompt...

That’s exactly how I feel all the time.

I guess I have an AI soul mate now

Reply on news.ycombinator.com