7 ms·
You're missing the point of the parent comment: GPT-3 can understand this idiom because it was trained on a corpus in which the context for this idiom already e
by jchmrt 5y ago
You're missing the point of the parent comment: GPT-3 can understand this idiom because it was trained on a corpus in which the context for this idiom already existed. If a new idiom would emerge, the system would not necessarily be able to handle it if it can not understand it from the context it was trained on. Therefore, a translating AI needs to be continuously updated.
- kbelder 4y agoIs that any different than a human? They can be pwnded by new idioms.
- jchmrt 4y agoNo it isn't of course, but that speaks for the argument that AGI is necessary for human-level translation :)
- andai 4y agoOr just an up-to-date GPT?
- xyzzyz 4y agoLike, for example, “to be pwned”, which I believe is not going to be understood by majority of English speakers.
- ufmace 4y agoI think Humans are pretty good at at least recognizing that a particular phrasing doesn't make sense as a literal statement and so must be a reference to something. Often you can get an idea of what it's meant to mean just by context. Sometimes if you see a dozen or so usages, you get the idea of what it means without ever having it explicitly explained.
- lupire 4y agoOne of the main differences between humans and ML is that humans learn in far fewer examples than machines. "Poverty of the stimulus" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_of_the_stimulus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_of_the_stimulus
- andai 4y agoUntil the models become more sophisticated than human brains. Then humans will need more examples than a machine would to learn the same thing.
- TillE 4y agoGood luck accurately machine translating the infinitely growing idiom of jokey Twitter conversation, which most native speakers can pick up pretty quickly.