453qtgreq

.

.

The hospitals were never "full" of Covid patients. During the two years from March 2020 onwards, the NHS treated about 70% the number of people that it does during more normal years. These were also mostly not Covid patients. The only reason the NHS stopped treating people during those years is because it was determined that it was too "unsafe", not because the hospitals were full of Covid patients.

In fact, now that Covid is more or less over, our health service has become so dysfunctional that only now we are turning people away due to capacity issues (or leaving them in the back of an ambulance for 10+ hours).

We didn't save the NHS, we broke it.

I think it was such a bad move to tie the driving purpose of Covid Restrictions in the UK to "Saving the NHS". One obvious flaw is that people will retrospectively tie the success of lockdowns with the post-Covid state of healthcare. Given that the NHS was already barely functional pre-Covid, denying healthcare for several years and simultaneously making it harder to give healthcare was a recipe for disaster.

>an obvious counterexample

ChatGPT uses sub-word tokens. This is not a surprising outcome.

On the contrary. My example is to show that ChatGPT does fairly well with constrained questions and textual forms, and gets worse with broader questions.

"What's new with you" is a relatively common greeting.

>stuff nobody said

>Given that the names were made-up and unique, and have zero hits on google

You said it yourself. I just don't see the novelty that a machine learning algorithm, trained on huge amounts of stuff scraped off the internet, can find rhyming words.

That aside, there's an enormous amount of poetry in the training set. Given the relatively strict constraints of the style, there's not much interesting about slotting in words that grammatically make sense.

I don't understand what you mean by your first sentence. Copilot-enhanced VS Code is becoming very popular. Copilot uses GPT3, which is exclusively licensed by Microsoft from OpenAI. I'm very much talking about the real world, and the frighening ease and speed which which MS is taking over the way we write software.

>Pray tell, how will Microsoft do that, exactly?

How will Microsoft make people pay for tools that they currently distribute freely? You don't have to look very far to find examples.

I've tried this out. It doesn't seem to matter how you phrase your request for "alternative music notation", it suggests colouring it in. Which is very easily found on a Wikipedia page describing an existing system used to teach music, as well as many other pages on the topic.

I'm baffled how people are so amazed by easily-found existing ideas being presented by an arrogant chatbot.

You're amazed because a training set, largely based on the contents of the internet since about 2011, is able to find words that rhyme with arbitrary word endings?

4 stanzas. My bad. Still not impressed.

The lionisation of GPT technology (which is nothing special, apart from the scale of execution) is quite embarrassing. Have we forgotten that each of us has, within our own heads, a computer vastly superior to this toy (and one that needed $12 million in compute costs alone to train, while mine at least runs on porridge and cheese sandwiches)?

Just for fun, try a prompt like "Write a new letter" (which eventually gave an error). Or "Write something new" (I was then told I was "making too many requests").

This is a very interesting topic of conversation, but applying this level of thought to the output of GPT3 hugely over-rates what it does.

You already provided it with the cultural and artistic prompts, the full context of which were already generated independently by humans.

>Is the claim that these were all simply copy and pastes of something on the internet in their entirety? And that as such the internet already seems to contain essentially every permutation of everything I could ask ChatGPT, as to me this sounds highly implausible.

It's the training data supplied to GPT3 (as explained by OpenAI themselves), so yes, it is literally true. You are just seeing snippets of the internet, re-formed and regurgitated.

It can only do what you ask.

Your original comment made a big deal of a poem-writer being able to incorporate unique words that you gave to it in the first place. No, that's not very interesting.

Writing a "4-line humourous poem" is also trivial. I'm sure my four year old could manage it. Praising a machine learning algorithm for this, that took over 10,000 Exaflops to perform its training routine seriously demeans human ability.

Parent commenter here. No-one has picked up on the last of my points, which I think is the most crucial. Once we're all hooked on the "productivity gains" of widely using GPT, what will we do once Microsoft start bundling it into subscription packages? Just pay up, I suppose.

Did you invent this novel notation? If so, that is the existing work.

Given that you supplied ChatGPT with those names, which still have the very ordinary properties of rhyming with other words and denoting a particular person or being, that's not very interesting.

Let's be clear - we're all obsessed with ChatGPT, but all it does is regurgitate existing works.

I see this as further progress down the path of "We don't know how this works, there is no way to know how, but it does.". It also exchanges creativity and the skills gained through effortful creation for dependence on a technolgical marvel that is (currently) free.

The string of developments that started with the phonograph have ended the generational handing-down of musical and vocal cultural artifacts, and have degraded music to the endless repetition of the same fixed recordings.