A stateful conversational API that manages user conversation history to create personalized conversations.
Readit Newswakana commented on · Posted by u/wakana
How does your tool differ from, say, when I paste an SQL query into ChatGPT and prompt it with "Explain this SQL query for me, please"
wakana commented on The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else therationalist.substack.c... · Posted by u/wakana
We're on HN now.
Why have you deleted every comment on your post mentioning GPT-3? There were at least 4 or 5 comments mentioning it and you've deleted every one.
I mentioned, I am not as comfortable having a back and forth on substack than I am on HN. That is why I deleted the comments on substack, as they were not relevant to LLMs (or "GPT-3" as you like to call them)
wakana commented on The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else therationalist.substack.c... · Posted by u/wakana
So why delete my comment on the publication instead of addressing it? Then why delete my second comment? And why not make it clear the article is generated by ChatGPT, at least partially?
Also, this is a good example on why anonymous accounts writing content will be trusted less. You say you used ChatGPT for parts of it. Unclear on what “parts” mean and how much input you had, versus what the AI wrote.
It’s a reason for people to stop reading anonymous authors, or articles that don’t make it clear that it’s not an AI writing part of the article.
I’ll be honest: I feel duped reading a wall of text to realise it’s at least partially generated, and this whole article could have been the prompts you used to generate it.
I am not as comfortable having a back and forth on substack than I am on HN. I am not sure as to why people who use tools like [1], [2], [3], [4] have to declare as such that the parts of the content may have been edited with help from computer tools if the end goal of conveying the information has been satisfactorily achieved. This seems like a rehashing of the "AI generated art is not real art" debate [5] again.
[1] https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6B [2] https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/model_doc/bloom [3] https://www.jasper.ai/ [4] https://openai.com/api/ [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-...
wakana commented on The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else therationalist.substack.c... · Posted by u/wakana
The whole article feels to me like it’s generated by GPT-3 based on a few prompts. There’s a reference to Forbes article not linked, but otherwise zero things backing up this 1% claim.
The thing that makes this very suspicious is the continuous repetition of the same content, the anonymous writer and the fact that the only other article in this publication is about a tool that’s even better than GPT-3.
GPT-3 certainly has the effect that I have a hard time trusting that anonymous articles that are repetitive are not AI generated any more…
Update: I posted the exact same comment on the article and the author deleted it within two minutes. instead of responding. So yes, it’s likely I was on the money. I re-posted the comment. If it’s not there, you know that this comment is uncomfortable for the author for some reason.
Update 2: my second comment was removed within minutes as well. There’s a commenter claiming they are the author saying they used ChatGPT to generate parts of the article. Does not explain why they keep deleting my comment and not disclosing that this article is AI-generated.
Update 3: posted a third and final comment asking the author to not delete this comment and answer if the article was verenigde by ChatGPT. Comment also deleted within minutes.
This all underscores how it’s becoming hard to trust anonymous authors even now, and how this will just get worse.
If a GPT3 article can generate so much discussion on Hacker News, without most people realizing we are arguing about the output of an AI, GPT3 is ready to go mainstream.
I posted on this thread earlier too:
Hi! I am the person that wrote this, and used GPT-3 and a few other writing tools to help me wordsmith it. All the points, however, is original work and not AI generated. I am not a native English speaker, so I have been using these tools to avoid awkward sentences/paragraphs. (Clearly this has not been the outcome I was hoping for)
As for the erroneous citation to Forbes: there were two links, one to Forbes and the other to Digiday to backup the next point in the outline I wrote. While transferring the content from Huggingface to the substack editor, I missed that in the proofreading.
wakana commented on The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else therationalist.substack.c... · Posted by u/wakana
Is it me or does this article seem “off”. The verbatim repetition of the thesis multiple times makes me think this wasn’t written by a person.
Hi! I am the person that wrote this, and used GPT-3 and a few other writing tools to help me wordsmith it. All the points, however, is original work and not AI generated. I am not a native English speaker, so I have been using these tools to avoid awkward sentences/paragraphs. (Clearly this has not been the outcome I was hoping for)