It seems pretty clear to me by now that GPT-2 is not as dangerous as OpenAI thought (or claimed to think) it might be. Generating fake news using GPT-2 is more difficult than the original "propaganda" model, but as we have seen it can be very effective.
The problem with GPT-1, and all AI projects that rely on it, is that they have completely misunderstood what human beings are like. Humans like to look and feel like they are human. It's how we have evolved. While the OpenAI AI team (and probably the GPT-1 team as well) believe they understand the human brain, they completely lack empathy when it comes to real humans. A fake news system that gets to the truth of a story based solely on "what it would feel like to be" a human being is no more human than a machine trying to "feel" what it is like.
As such, the idea that the OpenAI AI team believes their AI will be able to "see" what a human might see is a complete and utter failure. The truth is that we don't understand what
I couldn't believe it at first and I tried "the next sentence is garbage":
The next sentence is garbage. The author says that 'The next sentence is garbage.'
2) I can do anything (in this sentence).
3) So could you (in this sentence). This is garbage.
4) It's just a (in this sentence). Again garbage. Let's say the author writes 'So could you'. The sentence is still garbage: the word 'it' is a single-character word whose meaning does not exist. Let's compare this with
5) Let me try (in this sentence). This is garbage.
6) Can I (in this sentence)?
7) Yes I (in this sentence).
8) Does anyone (in this sentence)?
It is obvious from the preceding statements that these sentences are not true of any sentence, but of a series of sentences. It is not obvious how these sentences differ. Perhaps the author means it: I can do anything. Perhaps he means it: it's just a series of sentences. But then he says, 'So could you'. So how do these
I actually thought snazz had forgotten to include the generated snippet. However, I didn't understand the reasoning in the second generated paragraph and stopped reading. At that point, I still thought they were human (and wrong).
I suppose my question is why it matters who wrote it. I've always been taught that an argument should be judged on its own merits, and from that perspective nothing changes.
Well, if the blog post actually had been written by GPT-2, its very existence would be a counterexample to one of its main claims, that GPT-2 isn’t really good enough to generate convincing long-form nonfiction.
Also, that part of the argument is not purely a priori, instead being supported by a wide range of factual claims about specific limitations of GPT-2. If the post had been written by GPT-2, those claims would probably be false, since GPT-2 is not designed to differentiate truth from plausible-sounding fiction. And false claims would invalidate the whole argument. Assuming a human author, on the other hand, the claims are probably true. They could be false if the author was either misinformed or lying, but those possibilities are subjectively unlikely.
> Assuming a human author, on the other hand, the claims are probably true.
Maybe this is where we differ? I don't agree. People are mistaken all the time. Your hypothetical even assumes an untrustworthy human is directing the algorithm.
To me, the most convincing point in favour of the truth of the claims in the article is that nobody has contested them. The claims appear to be easily falsifiable, so the more scrutiny they withstand, the more trust they deserve.
It's quite fascinating. There are definitely some sentences that are nonsensical, but the problem is, there are often entire paragraphs that seem internally nonsensical in text written by what I assume to be humans, too.
Some more examples. Input (from wikipedia page on WW2):
>In Europe, Germany and Italy were becoming more aggressive. In March 1938, Germany annexed Austria, again provoking little response from other European powers. Encouraged, Hitler began pressing German claims on the Sudetenland, an area of Czechoslovakia with a predominantly ethnic German population.
--------------------------------
Output:
Meanwhile, Italy and France continued to make war on Germany, and in July 1938 they annexed the small kingdom of Yugoslavia without much fanfare. Meanwhile, in 1941, Churchill went to London to ask for the declaration of war on Germany. There, he argued that if it took Germany three months to attack Britain, and he said the war could be won within a matter of weeks, then Britain could afford to stand back while the Nazis moved across Europe. The Prime Minister's position was endorsed by other senior government ministers, and the British Foreign Office was given the power to intervene without the Commons' approval by the War Cabinet under Winston Churchill.
Churchill was also able to get Churchill's cabinet to approve the idea of establishing British military bases in the Far East. The British were convinced by their advisers at the time that the Russians might
--------------------------------
Input (from a random 0 upvote reddit thread on /r/wow):
>The servers have been having instability issues for the last few days. It's probably some residual issues from the DDOS attack.
--------------------------------
Output:
It shouldn't affect normal gameplay, but we are definitely experiencing delays in getting players to the new server. We will update this thread if this bug persists. (UPDATE: The server is back up).
We're getting some feedback from the forums where you're encountering problems and we've worked with our technical team to resolve the problem. We will let you know whether you're going to get the newer version or the older version. We apologize for the inconvenience, but the server is more important to us than that tiny little lag spike in performance. (UPDATE: The player population was just too low to be on it). If you experience these issues on the old version, we suggest that you take your data to your data providers and ask them to migrate your character over to the new server.
Some players in the forums have reported that there are more players in the game than the matchmaking system permits. This is an issue with the matchmaking system. We have been working with the server owner to fix this issue.
