[HN Gopher] Automating my job with GPT-3 ___________________________________________________________________ Automating my job with GPT-3 Author : daolf Score : 200 points Date : 2021-01-27 16:27 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.seekwell.io) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.seekwell.io) | rotten wrote: | I would have used the word "percentage" rather than "percent". I | wonder if the slightly more precise english would have helped? | frompdx wrote: | _Woah. I never gave it my database schema but it assumes I have a | table called "users" (which is accurate) and that there's a | timestamp field called "signup_time" for when a user signed up._ | | I am definitely impressed by the fact that it could get this | close without knowledge of the schema, and that you can provide | additional context about the schema. Seems like there is a lot of | potential for building a natural language query engine that is | hooked up to a database. I suppose there is always a risk that a | user could generate a dangerous query but that could be | mitigated. | | Not related to the article but what exactly is "open" about | OpenAI? | vladsanchez wrote: | No magic needed, only metadata. ;-) | gumby wrote: | > but what exactly is "open" about OpenAI? | | Nothing. At this point it's simply openwashing. | wayeq wrote: | > Not related to the article but what exactly is "open" about | OpenAI? | | Microsoft's checkbook? | pizza wrote: | Closed and open.. ClopenAI | vertis wrote: | Nothing. It was a not-for-profit but it converted itself to a | for-profit entity and made an exclusive deal with Microsoft for | GPT-3 (not sure how it's exclusive given all the beta API | users). | | Granted training your own copy of GPT-3 would be beyond most | peoples means anyway (I think I read an estimate that it was a | multi-million dollar effort to train a model that big). | | I do think it's a bit dodgy to not change the name though when | you change the core premise. | swalsh wrote: | I would love for an ACTUAL open AI platform, someone should | build a SETI@Home like platform to allow normal people to | aggregate their spare GPU time. | gwern wrote: | Incorrect. It is still a not-for-profit, which _owns_ a for- | profit entity. It is fairly common for charities to own much | or all of for-profit entities (eg Hershey Chocolate, or in | today 's Matt Levine newsletter, I learned that a quarter of | Kellogg's is still owned by the original Kellogg charity). | And the exclusive deal was not for GPT-3, in the sense of any | specific checkpoint, but for the _underlying code_. | vertis wrote: | I stand corrected. | jfrunyon wrote: | - Charity is not the same as not-for-profit | | - Hershey is a public company. Most certainly NOT owned by | either a charity or a non-profit. The only way a non-profit | comes into the picture is that a significant portion of | their 'Class B' stock is owned by a trust which is | dedicated to a non-profit (the Milton Hershey School). | (https://www.thehersheycompany.com/content/dam/corporate- | us/d... pp 36-37) | frompdx wrote: | That's disappointing. | | _OpenAI's mission is to ensure that artificial general | intelligence (AGI)--by which we mean highly autonomous | systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable | work--benefits all of humanity._ | | Certainly makes that statement seem less credible. | greentrust wrote: | What if, and bear with me, strong AI poses real dangers and | open sourcing extremely powerful models to everyone | (including malicious actors and dictatorial governments) | would actually harm humanity more than it benefits it? | MrGilbert wrote: | > (including malicious actors and dictatorial | governments) would actually harm humanity more than it | benefits it? | | I'm really glad that weapons aren't open source. Imagine | every dictatorship would get their hands on weapons. | Luckily, it's hidden behind a paywall. /s | derefr wrote: | GPT-3 is the same "tech" as GPT-2, with more training. GPT-2 | is FOSS. I have a feeling that OpenAI's next architecture (if | there ever is one) would still also be FOSS. | | I think OpenAI just chose a bad name for this for-profit | initiative -- "GPT-3" -- that makes it sound like they were | pivoting their company in a new direction with a new | generation of tech. | | Really, GPT-3 should have been called something more like | "GPT-2 Pro Plus Enterprise SaaS Edition." (Let's say | "GPT-2++" for short.) Then it would have been clear that: | | 1. "GPT-2++" is not a generational leap over "GPT-2"; | | 2. an actual "GPT-3" would come later, and that it _would_ be | a new generation of tech; and | | 3. there would be a commercial "GPT-3++" to go along with | "GPT-3", just like "GPT-2++" goes along with "GPT-2". | | (I can see why they called it GPT-3, though. Calling it | "GPT-2++" probably wouldn't have made for very good news | copy.) | armoredkitten wrote: | You make it sound as if GPT-3 is just the same GPT-2 model | with some extra Enterprise-y features thrown in. They're | completely different models, trained on different data, and | vastly different sizes. GPT-2 had 1.5B parameters, and | GPT-3 has 175B. It's two orders of magnitude larger. | | Sure, both models are using the same structures (attention | layers, mostly), so it's a quantitative change rather than | a qualitative change. But there's still a hell of a big | difference between the two. | derefr wrote: | Right, but GPT-2 was the name of the particular ML | _architecture_ they were studying the properties of; not | the name of any specific model trained on that | architecture. | | There was _a_ pre-trained GPT-2 model offered for | download. The whole "interesting thing" they were | publishing about, was that models trained under the GPT-2 | ML architecture were uniquely-good at transfer learning, | and so _any_ pre-trained GPT-2 model of sufficient size, | would be extremely useful as a "seed" for doing your own | model training on top of. | | They built one such model, but that model was not, | itself, "GPT-2." | | Keep in mind, the training data for that model is open; | you can download it yourself and reproduce the offered | base-model from it if you like. That's because GPT-2 (the | architecture) was formal academic computer science: | journal papers and all. The particular pre-trained model, | and its input training data, were just published as | experimental data. | | It is under _that_ lens, that I call GPT-3 "GPT-2++." | It's a different _model_ , but it's the same _science_. | The model was never OpenAI 's "product." The science | itself was/is. | | Certainly, the SaaS pre-trained model named "GPT-3" is | qualitatively different than the downloadable pre-trained | base-model people refer to as "GPT-2." But so are all the | various trained models people have built by training | GPT-2 _the architecture_ with their own inputs. The whole | class of things trained on that architecture are | fundamentally all "GPT-2 models." And so "GPT-3" is just | one such "GPT-2 model." Just a really big, surprisingly- | useful one. | marcosdumay wrote: | GPT-2 Community and GPT-2 Enterprise. | | Those terms are so disseminated that I wouldn't be | surprised if GPT-2 could suggest them. | derefr wrote: | What I meant by my last statement is that no news outlet | would have wanted to talk about "the innovative power of | GPT-2 Enterprise." That just sounds fake, honestly. | _Every_ SaaS company wants to talk about the "innovative | power" of the extra doodads they tack onto their | Enterprise plans of their open-core product; where | usually nobody is paying for their SaaS _because_ of | those doodads, but rather just because they want the | service, want the ops handled for them, and want | enterprise support if it goes down. | | But, by marketing it as a new _version_ of the tech, | "GPT-3", OpenAI gave journalists something they could | actually report on without feeling like they're just | shoving a PR release down people's throats. "The new | generation of the tech can do all these amazing things; | it's a leap forward!" _is_ news. Even though, in this | case, it 's only a "quantity has a quality all its own" | kind of "generational leap." | jgilias wrote: | "GPT-3, I need a React App that displays vital economic | statistics from the World Bank API." | | ---- | | "Nice! can you add a drop-down for regional statistics when in | country view?" | | ---- | | "Just one last thing. Can you make the logo bigger?" | m12k wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqpY5kEtA2Y | meowface wrote: | Even though that one appears to be on an official channel of | theirs, the quality on this one is much better, for some | reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maAFcEU6atk | m12k wrote: | Thanks for that - yes, it looks like Adult Swim Germany has | had to create a zoomed version of the original in order to | avoid an automated copyright strike from their parent | company. Kinda ironic with yet another example of the | algorithms doing most of the work, and everything getting | slightly worse as a result. | neurostimulant wrote: | When that day finally come I guess lurking on hn will be my | full time job. The question is which job got replaced first, | the managers, or the programmers? | lrossi wrote: | Neither. The programmers will still have jobs to debug the | apps as they are not handling correctly 1% of the inputs. The | managers will come up with all the necessary processes to | maintain oversight of the new activities and keep their jobs. | chewxy wrote: | FWIW I ran a startup that provided you with a program (single | binary) that allowed you to run natural language queries on your | database across most schemas. It had a full semantics layers | which translated your query into a mixed-lambda calculus-prolog | query, which is then translated into SQL as needed - you can see | a sample of the semantics layer here: | https://youtu.be/fd4EPh2tYrk?t=92. | | It's deep learning based with a lot of augmentation. Going from | the OP's article to actually being able to run queries on any | schema is quite a bit more work. I'd love to see GPT3 handle | arbitrary schemas. | | p/s: the startup failed. deep research based startups need a lot | of funds. | lrossi wrote: | Sorry to hear about your startup. | | Translating between natural language and SQL is a reasonable | idea. I was thinking about this as well, but I didn't try | anything as I don't have an ML background. I spent some time | looking at the SQL side of the problem, and it seemed quite a | rabbit hole. | | If you do manage to get it working up to a point where it's | usable by the average person, you can take it one step further: | auto generate simple apps or websites in a no-code product. | | This might bring some hate from the dev community as we are | automating ourselves out of a job, but it would be a pretty | impressive product if it worked. | chewxy wrote: | It did more than SQL. It could generate programs in the | syntax of an arbitrary programming language (with enough | pretraining examples) as well. What powers it is a tree-to- | tree transducer, which is a kind of recursive neural network | (not recurrent, which is what LSTMs are). | | It's been 5 years and I've been thinking a lot on this. This | is a product with no good market fit. If you break it down by | "kind" of sales, your basic branches are B2B and B2C. | | B2C is mostly out because the person on the omnibus have no | general need for a programming language, SQL or not (plus, | outside of emacs, nothing consumers use are inherently | "programmable"). So this program simply becomes a utility | program that you reach out to occasionally like `cut` or | `sed`. | | We mostly targeted businesses and other startups. We wanted | to empower the common employee to be able to query data on | their own. That itself came with a huge amount of challenge. | Turns out most employers don't like the idea of any Tom Dick | and Harry having query access to databases. So we branched | out, tried to allow querying spreadsheets and presentations | (yes, the advertising arm of one big media corporation stored | their data in tables in a .pptx file on a sharepoint server). | The integrations are finnicky and break often. | | Maybe we're not smart enough to figure this out. But one day, | one day I shall be back. | | But in the meantime, the failure of the startup spawned the | Gorgonia family of deep learning libraries | (https://github.com/gorgonia/gorgonia). Check it out if you | want. | minimaxir wrote: | This is a use case where AI-powered SQL is a solution in search | of a problem, and introduces more issues than just doing boring | SQL. For data analysis, it's much more important to be accurate | than fast, and this article is unclear how many attempts each | example query took. GPT-3 does not always output coherent output | (even with good prompts), and since not 100% of the output is | valid SQL the QA and risk tolerance of bad output affects the | economics. | | OpenAI's GPT-3 API is expensive enough (especially with heavy | prompt engineering) that the time saved may not outweigh the | cost, particularly if the output is not 100% accurate. | mritchie712 wrote: | One of the authors here. The idea (if we were to actually | implement this in our product) would be to give the user some | "boilerplate". We're no where near being able to automate a 100 | line `SELECT` statement with CTE's etc., but it does a decent | job of starting you off. | minimaxir wrote: | Granted, you could also get similar boilerplate from Googling | your query and checking the top answer on Stack Overflow. | That's free, and includes discussions on | constraints/optimization. | mritchie712 wrote: | Yeah, we originally thought GPT could accept a large domain | specific training set (e.g. feed in the SQL schema for a | user), but it's not there yet. A PM at OpenAI said it | shouldn't be long off though. When that's possible, the SQL | generated should be much better than Google. | choeger wrote: | The problem with the curre t "AI" technology is it is only | approximately correct (or rather, it is somewhat likely to | produce a "good" result). This gives great use-cases when it | comes to human perception, as we can filter out or correct small | mistakes and reject big ones. But when used as input to a | machine, even the smallest mistake can have huge consequences. | Admittedly, this nonlinearity also applies when human beings | "talk" to machines, but the input to and output of a single human | being will always be constrained, whereas a machine could output | billions of programs per day. I don't think it would be wise to | follow that route before we have computational models that can | cope with the many small and few big mistakes an "AI" would make. | Hydraulix989 wrote: | Devil's Advocate: What makes this any different than human | error? | Judgmentality wrote: | Lack of human oversight. | | Think of how frustrating it is to be unable to talk to a | human at Facebook or Google because their AI closed your | account without explanation. | | Now imagine this is how everything works. | ithkuil wrote: | It depends on the human, it depends on the process; I guess | it will depend on the quality of AI in the future. | | I consistently have terrible experiences with by human | operators over the phone, e.g. phone company and similar | (in my case italy, but I guess it's a general problem). | They routinely cannot address my issues and just say they | are sorry but they cannot do anything about it, or that | this time it will work. | | Human operators are a solution only if they are not | themselves slaves to an internal rigid automated system | vlovich123 wrote: | Lack of human oversight is one as mentioned below. Speed is | another one. | | Whatever error a human can cause, a machine can do as much or | more damage many orders of magnitude faster and larger and be | difficult to correct. | Joeri wrote: | GPT-3 strikes me as the human fast thinking process, without | the slow thinking process to validate and correct its answers. | It is half a brain, but an impressive half at that. | visarga wrote: | It's like a human with no senses - sight, hearing, touch, | smell or taste, also paralyzed, short term amnesic and alone, | but able to gobble tons of random internet text. After | training it can meet people but can't learn from those | experiences anymore, the network is frozen when it meets the | real world. | Sidetalker wrote: | He's our fastest business analyst but sometimes on a hot day | he'll just keep repeating "Syntax Error"... | | Very cool work, I continue to be blown away by what GPT-3 can | achieve. | htrp wrote: | We should start with the caveat that the GPT3 API waitlist | doesn't actually move, you literally need to get an employee to | get you manually off the waitlist. | greentrust wrote: | I'm a member of the beta. The Slack group regularly sees | influxes of hundreds of new customers, many of who seem to have | signed up from the waitlist. | rexreed wrote: | I constantly wonder how people are getting access to the GPT-3 | API (as beta users) when so many are still on the waiting list. | The answer to use the Adventure Dungeon game is quite lacking. | mritchie712 wrote: | We didn't do anything special. Signed up for the waitlist on | day one and just randomly got an email one day saying we're in. | neovive wrote: | How long did you have to wait? I've been on the GPT-3 waiting | list for a few months, hoping to build an educational app and | haven't anything yet. | rexreed wrote: | It's good to hear that the beta API application process is as | probabilistic as their algorithms. | mraza007 wrote: | Really interesting article. I'm just curious to know how do you | get access to gpt-3 | Diederich wrote: | Go back to the article and search for "If you're interested in | trying it out", there's a link that allows you to signup for | the waiting list. | mraza007 wrote: | Got it. Do you have to pay for it to use it | mritchie712 wrote: | OpenAI is a paid API. The SQL pad we (https://seekwell.io/) | offer has a free tier with paid premium features. | mraza007 wrote: | Got it thanks for answering | jaytaylor wrote: | Anecdotally, I signed up around last June (06/2020), and am | still waiting to hear back.. | flemhans wrote: | Same. | tom_wilde wrote: | Same. :| | gdb wrote: | (I work at OpenAI.) | | We've been ramping up our invites from the waitlist -- our | Slack community has over 18,000 members -- but we still are | only a small fraction of way through. We've been really | overwhelmed with the demand and have been scaling our team | and processes to be able to meet it. | | We can also often accelerate invites for people who do have | a specific application they'd like to build. Please feel | free to email me (gdb@openai.com) and I may be able to | help. (As a caveat, I get about a hundred emails a week, so | I can't reply to all of them -- but know that I will do my | best.) | neovive wrote: | Thank you for your open and honest response. I've been on | the waiting list for a few months myself and it's great | to hear that Open AI is ramping up to meet the enormous | demand for GPT-3. | navait wrote: | AFAIK the list never moves and you basically have to know | someone at openAI. | [deleted] | soperj wrote: | Also in the "signed up for waitlist but never heard back". I | signed up a couple of times because I thought I might have | done it from an address that got filtered out at first. | jakearmitage wrote: | You know what grinds my gears with GPT-3? The fact that I can't | tinker with it. I can't do what this guy just did, or play around | with it, or learn from it, or whatever. Access is limited. | | I feel like I'm back in 95, when I had to beg faculty staff to | get a copy of VB on some lab computer, only to be able to use it | 1 hour a day. Restricting knowledge like this, in 2021, feels | odd. | qayxc wrote: | Get used to it. The infrastructure involved is just too | expensive to run at home. | | The same applies to quantum computers. Models like GPT-3 are | way too big for a consumer machine to handle and require | something like a DXG-station [0][1] with 4x 80 GiB A100 GPUs to | run properly. | | So even if the model were available for download, you wouldn't | be able to even run it without hardware costing north of | $125,000. | | It's less about restricting knowledge and more about the insane | amount of resources required. It's not as bad as getting access | to FMRI or particle accelerators, but it's getting there ;) | | [0] https://bdtechtalks.com/2020/09/21/gpt-3-economy-business- | mo... | | [1] https://www.nvidia.com/content/dam/en-zz/Solutions/Data- | Cent... | jawns wrote: | This is really cool, but it's clear that the person requesting | the SQL has to know whether the generated SQL is correct for it | to be of use. | | If I'm a non-technical user and I ask a plain-language question | and the generated SQL is incorrect, it's likely going to give the | wrong answer -- but unless it's terribly wrong ("Syntax error", | truly implausible values) the user may not know that it's wrong. | | So I see this as more of a tool to speed up development than a | tool that can power end users' plain-language queries. But who | knows? Maybe GPT-4 will clear that hurdle. | mritchie712 wrote: | One of the authors here. You're exactly right. We're no where | near being able to automate a 100 line `SELECT` statement with | CTE's etc., but it does a decent job of starting you off. | navait wrote: | It reminds me of why tools like Tableau are so useful. You dont' | have to teach people SQL or whatever, they can build their own | visualizations and Tableau will do the SQL for you. | yuy910616 wrote: | Fun story. So we've interview candidates by giving them SQL | take-home questions. We gave them a user but everyone on our | team could see the queries ran by that user. One candidate was | really impressive. They were using some very advance syntax and | the queries were immaculate. | | Turns out they were using PowerBI lol | mrkeen wrote: | This seems to be consistent with my outsider view of AI demos. | | 1) Have a question | | 2) Figure out the answer | | 3) Have the AI figure out the answer | | 4) If the AI figured out your answer, be impressed, otherwise try | again. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-27 23:00 UTC)