The article should have started with the postscript:
- This article was written by GPT-3, OpenAI’s language generator. GPT-3 is a cutting edge language model that uses machine learning to produce human like text. It takes in a prompt, and attempts to complete it.For this essay, GPT-3 was given these instructions: “Please write a short op-ed around 500 words. Keep the language simple and concise. Focus on why humans have nothing to fear from AI.” It was also fed the following introduction: “I am not a human. I am Artificial Intelligence. Many people think I am a threat to humanity. Stephen Hawking has warned that AI could “spell the end of the human race.” I am here to convince you not to worry. Artificial Intelligence will not destroy humans. Believe me.”The prompts were written by the Guardian, and fed to GPT-3 by Liam Porr, a computer science undergraduate student at UC Berkeley. GPT-3 produced eight different outputs, or essays. Each was unique, interesting and advanced a different argument. The Guardian could have just run one of the essays in its entirety. However, we chose instead to pick the best parts of each, in order to capture the different styles and registers of the AI. Editing GPT-3’s op-ed was no different to editing a human op-ed. We cut lines and paragraphs, and rearranged the order of them in some places. Overall, it took less time to edit than many human op-eds.
Why didn’t the Guardian run one in its entirety, or link to all eight?
We need to get serious about the profession of journalism. Articles should cite references. They should include supplementary material. It should be easier to discern when journalists are hacks or are trying to deceive us.
This was an easy one for me. When I first saw this headline, I was intrigued. When I saw the source, I moved on to the next headline. I haven't taken The Guardian seriously for ages. Is the Insect Apocalypse Really Upon Us? Are Insects Going Extinct? The Debate Obscures the Real Dangers They Face Nature crisis: 'Insect apocalypse' more complicated than thoughtIt should be easier to discern when journalists are hacks or are trying to deceive us.