> Comparing it to the internet is insane, based off of its status as a highly advanced auto complete.
(1) I was quoting you.
(2) Don't you get some cognitive dissonance dismissing it in those terms, at this point?
"Fancy auto complete" was valid for half the models before InstructGPT, as that's all the early models were even trying to be… but now? The phrase doesn't fit so well when it's multimodal and can describe what it's seeing or hearing and create new images and respond with speech, all as a single unified model, any more than dismissing a bee brain as "just chemistry" or a human as "just an animal".
Apparently so: https://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-lost-in-may-because-of-...
Note that this article is about a year old now.
> Comparing it to the internet is insane, based off of its status as a highly advanced auto complete.
(1) I was quoting you.
(2) Don't you get some cognitive dissonance dismissing it in those terms, at this point?
"Fancy auto complete" was valid for half the models before InstructGPT, as that's all the early models were even trying to be… but now? The phrase doesn't fit so well when it's multimodal and can describe what it's seeing or hearing and create new images and respond with speech, all as a single unified model, any more than dismissing a bee brain as "just chemistry" or a human as "just an animal".