[m_ke]

I think it's fine to work on and release these models, where things fall apart is in how some large companies market them.

Listen to 1:35:30 of this Bill Simmons podcast interview to see how an average person interprets the capabilities of these models: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGh...

[aww_dang]

There are people who believe explicit works of fiction. Marvel movies come to mind. I'll know we've arrived when super hero films begin with a disclaimer.

The runtime of the podcast was 1:34:27

[trompetenaccoun]

Religion comes to mind as well. It's not a new development, many simply follow what they're told by authorities or thought leaders.

[bradrn]

> I'll know we've arrived when super hero films begin with a disclaimer.

That kind of thing has already been happening for quite a while, though. Books have long had disclaimers along the lines of ‘the following events and characters are entirely fictional and are not based on any people from the real world’ — I recall seeing them in e.g. Wodehouse’s books from the 1940s, so it’s not like it’s a new thing.

[musingsole]

Those warnings are more a protection for libel lawsuits than they are about warning that the contained fictional story is fictional.

[m_ke]

Weird, it shows up as 1:40 long for me. It's the last 5 minutes of the episode, where they claim GPT-3 is an all knowing machine that will generate factual responses to any question in a way that's superior to google search.

[HDThoreaun]

My dad is a doctor who oversees residents. Seems like half the time they call him for advice he just puts their question into gpt-3 and regurgitates it’s answer, so bill isn’t the only one.

[mattkrause]

If that's actually happening--and I am both skeptical and terrified that it is--it seems awfully close to malpractice or even (criminal) negligence.

[imtringued]

It sounds like someone is making fun of their dad for sounding like a robot.