MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085332162 · doi:10.22148/001c.17212

Can GPT-3 Pass a Writer’s Turing Test?

2020· article· en· W3085332162 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katherine Elkins, Jon Chun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cultural Analytics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTuring testHeuristicField (mathematics)GrammarTest (biology)Artificial intelligenceScale (ratio)Language modelNatural language processingNatural languageTuringLanguage identificationProgramming languageLinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently the field of natural language generation relied upon formalized grammar systems, small-scale statistical models, and lengthy sets of heuristic rules. This older technology was fairly limited and brittle: it could remix language into word salad poems or chat with humans within narrowly defined topics. Recently, very large-scale statistical language models have dramatically advanced the field, and GPT-3 is just one example. It can internalize the rules of language without explicit programming or rules. Instead, much like a human child, GPT-3 learns language through repeated exposure, albeit on a much larger scale. Without explicit rules, it can sometimes fail at the simplest of linguistic tasks, but it can also excel at more difficult ones like imitating an author or waxing philosophical.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.018
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.037

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations205
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cultural AnalyticsSame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207