I am completely floored. Someone run a thought of mine through GPT-3 to expand it into an explanation of what I had in mind, and it's like 95% meaningful and 90% correct. I don't think that I have seen a human explanation of my more complicated tweets approaching this accuracy :) https://twitter.com/jessems/status/1283030473816576002

To be clear, it is still subtly wrong in many ways, like the diff between GPT-2 and 3, the selection function being a sigmoid, the way solutions are extracted, the idea that a universal algo results from running through all possible solutions, and it's meandering and redundant...

I still get the impression that it correctly extracts the gist of most of the tweet, builds it into an argumentative structure, invents plausible details (even if they happen to be slightly wrong here), and produces a text that looks like written by a reasonably smart redditor.