"In the examine|AI system, the base AI (e.g. ChatGPT) is continuously supervised and corrected by a supervisor AI. The supervisor can both passively monitor and evaluate the output of the base AI, or can actively query the base AI. This way, users and developers interact with the team of base and supervisor systems. Performance, robustness and truthfulness are enhaced by the automated evaluation, critique and improvement afforded by the supervisor.
Our approach is inspired by the Socratic method, which aims to identify underlying assumptions, contradictions and errors through dialog and radical questioning."
> Also PLoS one is basically not peer reviewed - they accept every paper after a short review.
That is absolutely not true, PLOS ONE has proper peer-review, their review guidelines just focus on technical soundness and de-emphasize subjective noteworthiness.
(As a personal anecdote, I managed to get one of my papers rejected from PLOS ONE once...)
Which often is terrible advice that mostly serves to limit liability. Most medical doctors will not have a good, evidence-based answer to such questions.
Better reply: Search the internet for authoritative sources (e.g., official guidance of governmental institutions) or medical guidelines.
Being very efficient at mostly extractive summarization and abstaining from abstractive summarization does seem a better bet though, because fewer things can go wrong and it is easier to check the summaries against the full text.
"BioNTech CEO expects vaccine can be fridge-stored for two weeks"
"Speaking at an online media briefing on the purchase of an additional German production site, Chief Executive Ugur Sahin said tests have recently confirmed the genetic compound remains stable at 2 to 8 degrees Celsius for five days but he expects storability at those conditions to be two weeks or longer."
The original Nabla article is missing information on how they primed GPT-3 for each use-case, and how much effort they put into finding good ways of priming.
All fancy GPT-3 demos seem to rely on good priming.
The time scheduling problems are probably hard limit of GPT-3 capabilities.
The "kill yourself" advice, on the other hand, might have been avoided by better priming.
How is it possible that the original submission has been on the front page for 8+ hours, and all discussion is focused on this completely unrelated link?
Have people stopped reading original submission links in favor of comments so much that the discussion is no longer related to the original submission at all?
Of course neither GPT-3 nor the PET paper claim SOTA on SuperGLUE. They used a few-shot learning setup with 32 examples per task The normal SuperGLUE setup has hundreds or thousands of examples per task [1].
> In general, paper with "new variation of cloze pre-training task for this specific task" is a new section of the literature that is rapidly becoming sort of mundane and uninteresting because there are so many papers doing small variations of the same basic idea.
Could you please link to some of the work you are referring to?
A shorter reply would be: It would be great to compare PET not only to GPT-3, but also to other models, especially ones geared towards few-shot learning.
Do you know of any other models that should be used for such a comparison, or are there already any relevant results on SuperGLUE that should be mentioned?
I think few-shot learning (or priming) is actually the main selling point of GPT-3 for most practical applications (rather than merely entertaining language generation).
So if there is a method that achieves the same goal with a model that is simple enough to be used by normal developers and researchers without OpenAI-scale infrastructure, that does seem buzz-worthy.
I tried using Obsidian, but I could not resolve the uncertainty of what should be a separate note file vs several items inside a note file.
I then tried various 'outliner' applications (Dynalist, Roam, Workflowy). With these kinds of apps, there is hardly any friction between document and content granularity levels; everything can be just one big tree / directed graph.
I finally settled with Dynalist [1] -- it recently introduced backlinks and is the far more mature, sleek and feature-rich option compared to Roam.
Dynalist has an offline app (which syncs with the server when online). See https://dynalist.io/download . It's the same interface as on the web (so not 'native'), though.
Non-American here. I think 9/11 has global significance that goes beyond its impact on the US. It destroyed the narrative that liberal democracy, free markets and technology had removed all obstacles that would keep us from converging towards a peaceful, secular and progressive global society.
I am an 'old millenial' and have absolutely the same impression (and my personal life at that time was also a mixed bag, so it certainly is not personal nostalgia).
The time period of mid 90s until 9/11 should really receive far more attention. It feels like most of the world was on a much more optimistic and promising trajectory.
I think it was also the last time that we saw major, society-wide and significant technological progress happen in a short amount of time in developed countries: the early days of widespread adoption of the web and all of its implications.
At the same time, I sometimes wonder if many of the negative developments of the two decades afterwards might also be ascribed to the spreading adoption of the web and its unintended negative consequences to global sensemaking.
"In the examine|AI system, the base AI (e.g. ChatGPT) is continuously supervised and corrected by a supervisor AI. The supervisor can both passively monitor and evaluate the output of the base AI, or can actively query the base AI. This way, users and developers interact with the team of base and supervisor systems. Performance, robustness and truthfulness are enhaced by the automated evaluation, critique and improvement afforded by the supervisor.
Our approach is inspired by the Socratic method, which aims to identify underlying assumptions, contradictions and errors through dialog and radical questioning."