I still don't see or have read about a useful use case for GPT-3. Maybe for procedurally generated chitchat between NPC in video games or an advanced Lorem ipsum generator but that's about it.
https://twitter.com/sharifshameem/status/1284095222939451393...
I do think GPT-3 has shown improvement, and it's a step forward, but it probably tells more about how humans interpret rather than how AI might work. Wrote about it more in the link below:
GPT-3's use case is fun.
More generally, it can convert text from a simple, unstructured form into more complex, more structured form, with just a few example transforms. It's astonishingly good at it, but I haven't seen much on the public net about it. I don't know why people aren't exploring it more tbh.
I'm hoping we can finish some of Tolkien's unpublished books (Please give me beta access OpenAI heh)
> I'm hoping we can finish some of Tolkien's unpublished books (Please give me beta access OpenAI heh)
> [...] GPT-3 can be and is likely already weaponised, it's nice to see anyone out there using it for humble things rather than straight-up digital warfare.
Well, not that I necessarily agree with the decision (I'm undecided), but one point in favor of only giving access to the model via an API rather than releasing it, is that the use can be monitored and hopefully "weaponization" will be either noticed or detected[0].
It would be pretty interesting if OpenAI eventually provided an external "ML API abuse monitoring" service, but one problem I haven't figured out a solution to is that when providing such a service, the goals of "reducing harmful use" and of "slowing the arms race"[1] (which are both valid goals) are somewhat opposed. I'm still thinking about that.[2]
[0] Using ML to detect harmful uses of an ML API would be a quite interesting research topic, and quite in line with OpenAI's stated mission, but gathering the necessary data set for training purposes may require allowing harmful use of the API in the first place (though I have thought of a few ways to mitigate those risks and limit the actual harm).
[1] http://xkcd.com/810/ is amusing, but misses the point. Spammers aren't just attempting to evade filters, but also trying to accomplish their goal, so inadvertently training a bot capable of writing an apparently constructive comment that successfully sneaks a spam link through to be clicked on and/or indexed isn't exactly a win for the good guys.
[2] I wouldn't be surprised in the least if a GAN-like social deception arms-race (especially since the same networks have to serve as both generator and discriminator) was the proximate cause of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution.
Marketing isn't evil, and it isn't the end of the world.
As to your dig, my conscience is clear; I made a conscious effort to avoid such ends in my professional life, sometimes to my short term detriment. My personal time is mine to do with what I please, even if you consider some of that time to be used in a self righteous or low effort way. It's not self righteous to point out bad things.