If my interpretation of the Retrieval quadrant is correct, it will become much more difficult to be an average, or even above average, writer. Only the best will flourish. Perhaps we will see a rise in neo-generalists.
This is probably true of average or poor software engineers given that GPT-3 can produce pretty reasonable code snippets
Misleading Templates There is no consistent re-lation between the performance of models trainedwith templates that are moderately misleading (e.g.{premise} Can that be paraphrasedas "{hypothesis}"?) vs. templates that areextremely misleading (e.g., {premise} Isthis a sports news? {hypothesis}).T0 (both 3B and 11B) perform better givenmisleading-moderate (Figure 3), ALBERT andT5 3B perform better given misleading-extreme(Appendices E and G.4), whereas T5 11B andGPT-3 perform comparably on both sets (Figure 2;also see Table 2 for a summary of statisticalsignificances.) Despite a lack of pattern between
Their misleading templates really are misleading
{premise} Can that be paraphrased as "{hypothesis}"
{premise} Is this a sports news? {hypothesis}
Insum, notwithstanding prompt-based models’impressive improvement, we find evidence ofserious limitations that question the degree towhich such improvement is derived from mod-els understanding task instructions in waysanalogous to humans’ use of task instructions.
although prompts seem to help NLP models improve their performance, the authors find that this performance is still present even when prompts are deliberately misleading which is a bit weird
Suppose a human is given two sentences: “Noweapons of mass destruction found in Iraq yet.”and “Weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.”They are then asked to respond 0 or 1 and receive areward if they are correct. In this setup, they wouldlikely need a large number of trials and errors be-fore figuring out what they are really being re-warded to do. This setup is akin to the pretrain-and-fine-tune setup which has dominated NLP in recentyears, in which models are asked to classify a sen-tence representation (e.g., a CLS token) into some
This is a really excellent illustration of the difference in paradigm between "normal" text model fine tuning and prompt-based modelling
Antibiotic resistance has become a growingworldwide concern as new resistance mech-anisms are emerging and spreading globally,and thus detecting and collecting the cause– Antibiotic Resistance Genes (ARGs), havebeen more critical than ever. In this work,we aim to automate the curation of ARGs byextracting ARG-related assertive statementsfrom scientific papers. To support the researchtowards this direction, we build SCIARG, anew benchmark dataset containing 2,000 man-ually annotated statements as the evaluationset and 12,516 silver-standard training state-ments that are automatically created from sci-entific papers by a set of rules. To set upthe baseline performance on SCIARG, weexploit three state-of-the-art neural architec-tures based on pre-trained language modelsand prompt tuning, and further ensemble themto attain the highest 77.0% F-score. To the bestof our knowledge, we are the first to leveragenatural language processing techniques to cu-rate all validated ARGs from scientific papers.Both the code and data are publicly availableat https://github.com/VT-NLP/SciARG.
The authors use prompt training on LLMs to build a classifier that can identify statements that describe whether or not micro-organisms have antibiotic resistant genes in scientific papers.