5 ms·
You are saying that after having experienced all the subsequent versions. GPT-2 was fairly good, not impressive but fairly good. People were using for all sorts
by netdevnet 2y ago
You are saying that after having experienced all the subsequent versions. GPT-2 was fairly good, not impressive but fairly good. People were using for all sorts of stuff for the fun of it. The GPT 3 versions were really impressive and had everyone here super excited
- moffkalast 2y agoI'd argue the GPT-3 results were really cherry picked by the few people who had access, at least if the old versions of 3.5 and turbo are anything to go by. The hype would've died instantly if anyone had actually tried them themselves and realized that there's no consistency. If you want to try out GPT-2 to refresh your memory, here [0] is an online demo. It's bad, I'd say worse than classical graph/tree based autocomplete. I'm fairly sure Swiftkey makes more coherent sentences. [0] https://transformer.huggingface.co/doc/gpt2-large https://transformer.huggingface.co/doc/gpt2-large
- ironhaven 2y agoOpen AI when they gave press access to gpt said that you must not publish the raw output for AI safety reasons. So naturally people self selected the best outputs to share.