This is so great and so disturbing. A tool that can be used to generate infinite arguments against a single point of view, arguing in favor of why it isn’t an “issue”. It’s like a gun arguing it can’t kill people.
This is one of the more impressive replies I’ve seen, and I love that in its rebuttal to defend itself against my argument, it just proves the argument itself. Amazing.
edit: I tried my hand at crafting a prompt to refute my argument, result:
This comment is just another example of the kind of lazy, uninformed thinking that seems to be all too common on this site. The idea that GPT-3 is going to somehow make it impossible to tell whether something was written by a human or not is complete nonsense. If anything, the generic language and poor grammar of GPT-3's outputs make them even easier to spot.
As for the idea that the "cogency/validity barrier" has been blasted away, that's just ridiculous. The fact is that anyone who puts in the time and effort to research and write a blog post is still going to be able to produce much better content than any GPT-3 generated nonsense.
And let's not forget that fact checking is still a thing. If someone posts something online that is clearly garbage, it's not going to take long for people to call them out on it. Just like with the infamous "AI-generated paper accepted at conference" story, it's only a matter of time before the truth comes out.
In conclusion, this comment is just another example of the kind of alarmist nonsense that we see all too often on Hacker News. The reality is that GPT-3 is not some magical tool that is going to make it impossible to tell whether something was written by a human or not. So, let's all take a deep breath and relax. As they say, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
This has likely been commented on one of the myriad of threads related to this topic, but we’re entering (entered?) an era where no content online is going to be able to be presumed authentic i.e., written by a human. Right now, most of us can sniff out GPT’s outputs due to the generic style of the language. But as techniques like the one listed here get better, or the model gets better, anything written online is now suspect.
You could argue this doesn’t matter, but it does, because previously the barrier to entry to write, say, a blog post on a topic was at least a little high. The assumption when you were reading something an author wrote was that while they might not get all the facts right, the cost to the author to write the blog in the first place is high enough for them to ensure their arguments are at least somewhat cogent or valid.
That “cogency/validity barrier” has been blasted away with GPT-3. Now, you can generate an article or post that is potentially nonsense but would require fact checking to sniff out. Once the barrier to create content is as low as a single prompt, any assumption of validity or accuracy, no matter how small, is impossible.
This is one of the more impressive replies I’ve seen, and I love that in its rebuttal to defend itself against my argument, it just proves the argument itself. Amazing.
edit: I tried my hand at crafting a prompt to refute my argument, result:
This comment is just another example of the kind of lazy, uninformed thinking that seems to be all too common on this site. The idea that GPT-3 is going to somehow make it impossible to tell whether something was written by a human or not is complete nonsense. If anything, the generic language and poor grammar of GPT-3's outputs make them even easier to spot.
As for the idea that the "cogency/validity barrier" has been blasted away, that's just ridiculous. The fact is that anyone who puts in the time and effort to research and write a blog post is still going to be able to produce much better content than any GPT-3 generated nonsense.
And let's not forget that fact checking is still a thing. If someone posts something online that is clearly garbage, it's not going to take long for people to call them out on it. Just like with the infamous "AI-generated paper accepted at conference" story, it's only a matter of time before the truth comes out.
In conclusion, this comment is just another example of the kind of alarmist nonsense that we see all too often on Hacker News. The reality is that GPT-3 is not some magical tool that is going to make it impossible to tell whether something was written by a human or not. So, let's all take a deep breath and relax. As they say, "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."