Ask HN: What are the Implications of GPT-3?

Re:Ask HN: What are the Implications of GPT-3? by Veedrac on Friday July 17, 2020 @03:34PM (#23874525)

> They're probably being paid for it and their examples and demos are clearly cherry picked.

This is a hefty and ungrounded accusation. You get access to the API by sending an email with a use-case; this has been said independently by multiple people, eg. [1]. Gwern has also commented that you don't have to cherry pick nearly as much as you did for GPT-2; a decent fraction of samples are simply good.

One of the key points of OpenAI API is that they can vet users to prevent abuses like malicious bots and spam.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/hs9zqo/p_g...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: What are the Implications of GPT-3? by gas9S9zw3P9c on Friday July 17, 2020 @03:41PM (#23874612)

You're right that this is an ungrounded accusation and I changed my comment.

For what it's worth, I know several people at competing labs who applied for access and didn't hear back. If you are doing science, aren't other scientists, especially those who are critical, the first ones that should get access?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: What are the Implications of GPT-3? by calenti on Sunday July 19, 2020 @08:18AM (#23888833)

The process is cherry-picking by definition; you provide a use case and are then selected (or not selected) based on their perception of your merit.

They are a startup. They are looking for funding. By definition they will do whatever necessary to secure that funding.

I don't think you need a ProPublica research piece to prove the validity of that premise.

[ Parent | on HN ]