He calls out ads/marketing/copywriting as one area where ChatGPT is effective. His point is that the scope of things beyond that use case is probably a lot more limited than people are assuming.
Web3 was a circle jerk within the crypto community. It only convinced fools.
Recent GPT/stable diffusion products universally blow people away with their output.
Engineers and everyone else regularly dismiss new tech for its shortcomings and completely miss the forest for the trees.
It's fine to disagree with him, but most people doing so will be from a much less informed position.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=VfYhf2wAAAAJ...
His work on Keras is admirable, but that is about it.
Then why did Chollet dismiss it?
"If this had been a blog post and not a random spur-of-the-moment train of thoughts, I wouldn't have made the AI/web3 comparison. It was counterproductive, as it is what most folks are now focusing on."
"The two are, in fact, very much not the same."
I see a lot more naysayers than you. While I am impressed, plenty are unconvinced.
(I really need to make time to test it against random standard written qualifications; if anyone has some example exams and marking schemes, in any language, please let me know. I have Polish maths, plus English and Irish school leaving certificates).
I've yet to be blown away by either system. I guess I am just incredibly cynical but the output of ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion aren't all that impressive to me. A lot of Stable Diffusion art just looks like browsing random DeviantArt or ArtStation pages. ChatGPT reminds me of IRC Markov bots, it produces the same non-sensical crap that they would. Only when a prompt hews incredibly close to some training content does it seem to product cogent output.
Both will get better and might become more impressive to me but right now that's not the case. My main issue is neither system actually understands what it is being asked. They're relying on the viewer's tendency for apophenia and pareidolia do make them think the system understood what it was asked.
I think there's justification for heavy skepticism for the future of these systems because we're approaching the point where their incorrect/inaccurate output is going to end up feeding the next generation systems' training data.
I actually started trying to learn rust using chat gpt. I can just ask it to explain bits I don't understand ... and it does.
There's a lot of content generation in the legal and medical sphere that is probably also pretty much something where chat gpt could be helpful. Dangerous of course when it gets it wrong. But still, I could see this being a useful tool for researchers in all sorts of fields to quickly dig through a lot of information. Basically, chat gpt is trained on more stuff than a single human will be able to read.
I think this whole space is maybe bottlenecked on imagination. We have a lot of AI experts with not a whole lot of other expertise not seeing the forest for the trees. OpenAI employs a few geniuses but their product is basically a chat box and an API.
As I was remarking to a friend the other day: so they have chat gpt, pretty decent speech to text, and amazing text to speech .... so why can't I talk to chat gpt and listen to the answer? Such an obvious thing to do. Surely somebody thought of that. I mean inside OpenAI. I know there's a multitude of openai powered proofs of concept by third parties. But they don't seem to have the ambition to support a finished product so far.
I read the thread, it actually starts with him saying:
"If this had been a blog post and not a random spur-of-the-moment train of thoughts, I wouldn't have made the AI/web3 comparison. It was counterproductive, as it is what most folks are now focusing on. The two are, in fact, very much not the same."
So you can have the "appeal to authority" but the authority now says that was bad and should not have done it. :-)
He continues:
"I meant to compare the surrounding hype generation dynamics (as discussed towards the end of the thread). Expectations unmoored from reality becoming a universally accepted, self-evident canon once the same narratives have been repeated enough times in the echo chamber."
He also said pytorch was just a hype. It looks like he just doesn't like things he didn't do himself.
"I wouldn't have made the AI/web3 comparison. ... The two are, in fact, very much not the same."
So if you learned it blindly you'd be wrong too.