levesque

Is there really no way to do this?

To be fair, the people quoted in the book don't seem to be having that much fun. But yes, most of modern tech seems to be exploiting the same mechanism, generating addiction.

Absolutely, was thinking the same. IIRC it's also only telling success stories, so people burning themselves out but succeeding in the end.

For HN and forums in general, I think this will mean disabling APIs and having strict captchas for posting.

Beyond HN, I think this will translate in video content and reviews becoming more trustworthy, even if it's just a person reading a LLM-produced script. You will at least know they cared enough to put a human in the loop. That and reputation. More and more credit will be assigned based on reputation, number of followers, etc. And that'll be until each of these systems get cracked somehow (fake followers, plausible generated videos, etc.).

Predicting whether a text was written by a LLM or not is not trivial. What was the latest number by OpenAI? 30%? As LLMs get better, it seems like we won't be able to distinguish real text from fake text. Your LLM will be able to summarize it, but it will still be 99% spam.

Ah, interesting. Thought GPT-3.5 had the same structure as GPT-3, for some reason. GPT-4 would obviously be different.

Isn't ChatGPT a 165B parameter model?

This read more like a technical demo than a scientific paper. Wonder why they put it on arXiv.

It's not only about performance, it's also about maintainability. Codebases written by inexperienced programmers are extremely convoluted, nothing is decoupled and functions are extremely long and do multiple things. Extremely hard code to maintain or add features to.

Anthropomorphization of a text completion engine. Humanity will not be destroyed by a fancy autocomplete bot. This is just alarmist clickbait, moving on.

Yes and no. You wouldn't say GPT to mean large language models or autoregressive language models. I would've thought the same to be true for ChatGPT instead of Chatbots with RL from human feedback (RLHF), perhaps the field is moving towards adopting ChatGPT as a paradigm name. Note that the title doesn't say a ChatGPT-like model based on LLaMa, it says outright opensource implementation of ChatGPT.

I think I prefer the other commenter's point, referring to ChatGPT as a known learning paradigm for chatbots. But thanks for the little crash course on analogies ;)

It uses a different engine, so this is as related to ChatGPT as a Toyota Corolla is related to a BMW car. This is an efficient and open-source chatbot, which is very good news, but the authors just wrote a clickbait title and they know it.

In what way is this a ChatGPT implementation or equivalent? Seems like a chatbot based on a different backend, therefore it has absolutely zero link to ChatGPT.

AI models might be able to do this in the future by themselves, though with current paradigms AI will barely generate copies of existing levels with little creativity. Sure, a composition of existing level pieces could lead to an interesting level design, though it would be more by accident than by design. Models do not maximize player enjoyment, there is no metric for that. Maybe engagement metrics could be used, but I don't think players would stick around long enough playing bad levels to reach a viable model.

New models and paradigms will come up, but until then I'd say anything AI-generated will feel pretty vanilla and somewhat incoherent.