| >This is presented as humans hard coding answers to the prompts. No way is that the full picture. If you try out his prompts the responses are fairly invariant to paraphrases. Hard coded answers don't scale like that. It's presented as humans hard coding answers to some specific prompts. I feel like this is mostly people reactign to the title instead of the entire post. The author's point is: >In some sense this is all fine, it’s a sort of meta-learning where the components of the system include testers such as Gary Smith and those 40 contractors they hired through Upwork and ScaleAI. They can fix thousands of queries a day. >On the other hand, there does seem something funny about GPT-3 presents this shiny surface where you can send it any query and it gives you an answer, but under the hood there are a bunch of freelancers busily checking all the responses and rewriting them to make the computer look smart. >It’s kinda like if someone were showing off some fancy car engine but the vehicle is actually being powered by some hidden hamster wheels. The organization of the process is itself impressive, but it’s not quite what is advertised. >To be fair, OpenAI does state that “InstructGPT is then further fine-tuned on a dataset labeled by human labelers.” But this still seems misleading to me. It’s not just that the algorithm is fine-tuned on the dataset. It seems that these freelancers are being hired specifically to rewrite the output. |