undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmoffkalast1y ago0 comments

GPT-2 was not a fairly good chat model, it was a completely incoherent completion model. GPT-3 was not much better overall (take any entry level 1B sized model you can find today and it'll steamroll it in every way, hell probably even smaller ones), and the public at large never really had any access to it, I vaguely recall GPT 3 being locked behind an approval only paid API or something unfeasible like that. Nobody cared until instruct tunes happened.

0 comments

wongarsu1y ago

OpenAI had a real issue with making (for their time) great models but streching their rollout over months. They gave access to press and some twitter users, everyone else had to apply for their use case only to be put on the waitlist. That completely killed any momentum.

The first version of ChatGPT wasn't a huge leap from simulating chat with instruction-tuned GPT 3.5, the real innovation was scaling it to the point where they could give the world immediate and free access. That built the hype, and that success allowed them to make future ChatGPT versions a lot better than the instruction-tuned models ever were.

authorfly1y ago

The main reason ChatGPT took off was: 1) Response time of the API of that quality was 10x quicker than the Davinci-instruct-3 model that was released in summer 2022, making interaction more feasible with lower wait times and with concurrency 2) OpenAI strictly banned chat applications on the GPT API; even summarising with more than 150 tokens required your to submit a use case for review; I built an app around this in October 2022, got through the review, and it was then pointless as everybody could just use ChatGPT for the purposes of my apps new feature).

It was not possible for anybody to have just whacked the instruct models of GPT-3 into an interface for both the restrictions and latency issues that existed prior to ChatGPT. I agree with you on instruct vs ChatGPT and would further say the real innovation was entirely systematic, scaling and changing the interface. Instruct tuning was far more impactful than conversational model tuning because instruct enabled so many synthesizing use cases beyond the training data.

mikeqq20241y ago

"Instruct tuning was far more impactful than conversational model tuning because instruct enabled so many synthesizing use cases beyond the training data."

I saw many model providers nowadays provide instruct model in name as chat model. What difference between instruct tuning and conversational model tuning specifically?

2 more replies

netdevnet1y ago

You are saying that after having experienced all the subsequent versions. GPT-2 was fairly good, not impressive but fairly good. People were using for all sorts of stuff for the fun of it. The GPT 3 versions were really impressive and had everyone here super excited

moffkalastOP1y ago

I'd argue the GPT-3 results were really cherry picked by the few people who had access, at least if the old versions of 3.5 and turbo are anything to go by. The hype would've died instantly if anyone had actually tried them themselves and realized that there's no consistency.

If you want to try out GPT-2 to refresh your memory, here [0] is an online demo. It's bad, I'd say worse than classical graph/tree based autocomplete. I'm fairly sure Swiftkey makes more coherent sentences.

[0] https://transformer.huggingface.co/doc/gpt2-large

ironhaven1y ago

Open AI when they gave press access to gpt said that you must not publish the raw output for AI safety reasons. So naturally people self selected the best outputs to share.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse