The InstructGPT research did recruit 40 contracters to generate a dataset that GPT-3 was then fine-tuned on. But I [Quach] don't think those contractors are employed on an ongoing process to edit responses generated by the model. A spokesperson from the company just confirmed to me: "OpenAI does not hire copywriters to edit generated answers," so I don't think the claims are correct." So the above post was misleading. I'd originally titled it, "Open AI gets GPT-3 to work by hiring an army of humans to fix GPT's bad answers." I changed it to "Interesting questions involving the mix of humans and computer algorithms in Open AI's GPT-3 program." I appreciate all the helpful comments! Stochastic algorithms are hard to understand, especially when they include tuning parameters. I'd still like to know whassup with Google's LaMDA chatbot (see item 2 in this post).

In 1970, Marvin Minsky, recipient of the Turing Award ("the Nobel Prize of Computing"), predicted that within "three to eight years we will have a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being." The fundamental roadblock is that, although computer algorithms are really, really good at identifying statistical patterns, they have no way of knowing what these patterns mean because they are confined to MathWorld and never experience the real world. It's a brown-throated thrush, but in Germany it's called a halsenflugel, and in Chinese they call it a chung ling and even if you know all those names for it, you still know nothing about the bird–you only know something about people; what they call that bird. Now that thrush sings, and teaches its young to fly, and flies so many miles away during the summer across the country, and nobody knows how it finds its way," and so forth. There is a difference between the name of the thing and what goes on.