zlacker

>>grader+(OP)
I'm working on a project that uses GPT-3 and similar stuff, even before the hype. I think the overhype is really tiring.

Just like with most of these hype cycles there is an actual useful interesting technology, but the hype beasts take it way overboard and present it as if it's the holy grail or whatever. It's not.

That's tiring, and really annoying.

It's incredibly cool technology, it is great at certain use cases, but those use cases are somewhat limited. In case of GPT-3 it's good at generative writing, summarization, information search and extraction, and similar things.

It also has plenty of issues and limitations. Lets just be realistic about it, apply it where it works, and let everything else be. Now it's becoming a joke.

Also, a lot of products I've seen in the space are really really bad and I'm kinda worried AI will get a scam/shitty product connotation.

>>codept+b9
> GPT-3 it's good at generative writing

made up bullshit

> summarization

except you can't possibly know the output has any relation whatsoever to the text being summarized

> information search and extraction

except you can't possibly know the output has any relation whatsoever to the information being extracted

people still fall for this crap?

>>chx+de
Agreed. Been testing out responses to parsing complex genomics papers (say, a methodology section describing parameters of some algorithm) and its mostly rephrasing rather than digesting and responding with useful information / interpretation. And it will use so many words and imbue so little to the conversation, yet appear like it's helping because ... words.

>>NobleL+Fl
> complex genomics papers

I think it's fair to say this is not one of the use cases where it shines. It's not great at logic, it's also not that smart.

That's exactly what the hype does. Too big claims and then it gets dismissed when it inevitably doesn't live up to the hype.