this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
658 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
59109 readers
3175 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let's ignore the ethical implications of this for a moment.
Grammarly is training it's AI off of the poorly written grammar of it's users that it has to already adjust?
It seems like this would be a flawed set of training data. It's training on what it already either produced or on something written by someone who may not have used proper grammar in the first place.
Am I to expect this AI will improve over time?
Depending on how they're training it, they're likely looking at when grammarly corrections were accepted or rejected and the context around that. That's what I'd be using from the dataset anyhow
Remember that people have said GPT4 is getting dumber because of interacting with humans.
On average, people's grammar is correct, kind of by definition.
I can actually tell you a little about how this worked. The training data went through a team of grammarly writing experts before being fed to the AI. Writing experts would get short snippets out of context, often from publicly available text (e.g., reddit comments, classic novels, poems, scientific papers) and correct it for both grammar and clarity, then that would then become training data. Later on the team would do the same for content generated by the AI.
Source: Was one of the writing experts. For a couple of weeks I was correcting snippets that were very very obviously from r/squaredcircle. Very weird reading about Dave Batista's giant dong at work.