[HN Gopher] Creating personalised data stories with GPT-3
___________________________________________________________________
Creating personalised data stories with GPT-3
Author : ColinEberhardt
Score : 29 points
Date : 2021-12-08 09:05 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.scottlogic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.scottlogic.com)
| thewarrior wrote:
| Do this for peoples stock portfolios and you have a good startup
| idea right there.
|
| Or you could digest financial, health and content consumption
| data to create a personalized report with action items.
|
| Very promising.
| elikoga wrote:
| I agree, that also looks like a great use case. I'm sure there
| are many more to come.
|
| One thing I love about GPT-3 is that it uses the same common
| language for the "data people" and the "non-data" people. The
| same description works for both.
|
| This makes it so easy to explain what you are doing. I think
| that is a huge advantage over existing text generation methods.
| cryptoz wrote:
| A good article, I appreciate all the discussion on prompts too.
| However the author is a bit too underestimating of the language
| model and math:
|
| > GPT-3 is quick to learn that the narratives should include
| these comparisons, but often gets the maths wrong:
|
| > > During these runs he has climbed 62,599 feet, that's the
| equivalent of climbing Mount Everest six times (but a bit less
| steep)
|
| > Everest is ~29,000 feet, so this runner has climbed Everest
| roughly twice.
|
| I think it's the author here who gets the math wrong. An Everest
| climb is closer to 10,000 feet, making the GPT-3 math alarmingly
| accurate.
| jeanloolz wrote:
| Mount Everest, as far as I know is near 8850 meters high, which
| in feet is probably around 30000. The article snippets you took
| seem right to me, the author math checks out.
| cryptoz wrote:
| Right but you can't climb that. The author's math ignores the
| real context of climbing and uses a google search for the
| math. But no climber can climb the full altitude due to the
| physical geography. There's nobody that can relate to
| climbing that altitude on one mountain because the physical
| ground isn't like that.
|
| I guess what I'm saying is the AI is showing better
| understanding of climbing context than the author is giving
| credit for.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| It's implausible that GTP-3 wrote that because it knew the
| actual amount of climbing involve in an Everest ascent and
| tosses it without comment in a way that would look wrong to
| most people who read it.
|
| It's far more likely that the program cobbled together a
| variety of factoids and so got it's wrong-sounding
| statement in the same way it makes many other clearly wrong
| or illogical statements.
| peab wrote:
| Yes, according to this the elevation gains are ~3500m which
| is ~11,000 feet: https://www.strava.com/challenges/Strava-
| Climbing-Challenge-...
| savant_penguin wrote:
| To anyone who knows about the subject, what is the best gpt-like
| model you can still run in a laptop? (With about 16gb of ram, or
| 3gb-8gb of vram)
| dyndos wrote:
| GPT-2 is the most recent available from OpenAI. Otherwise you'd
| need to look at EleutherAI's GPT-Neo which comes in various
| sizes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-09 23:01 UTC)