OpenAI created a system that can generate reasonable summaries of entire books.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge said resolved true; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
True: as of 2021-09-23, OpenAI had built and described (e.g. in a paper or blog post) a system that produces summaries of whole books, not just passages, and that the published evaluation shows to be reasonable in at least a meaningful share of cases (e.g. human raters judging some summaries comparable to human-written ones). Mostly true: the system existed and summarised entire books, but OpenAI's own results show the summaries were reasonable only in a minority of cases, or a minor detail differs (e.g. it worked only on certain kinds of books). Mixed: a system existed but summarised only long sections or chapters rather than entire books, or its reasonableness is about evenly supported and contradicted. Mostly false: OpenAI had only an early prototype or partial capability that the claim overstates. False: no such OpenAI system existed by that date, or evidence shows its book summaries were generally not reasonable.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 Summarizing books with human feedback OpenAI · 23 September 2021 Own record
“Our best model is fine-tuned from GPT‑3 and generates sensible summaries of entire books, sometimes even matching the average quality of human-written summaries: it achieves a 6/7 rating (similar to the average human-written summary) from humans who have read the book 5% of the time and a 5/7 rating 15% of the time.”
-
E2 Recursively Summarizing Books with Human Feedback arXiv (ar5iv rendering), OpenAI authors Own record
“Some of these summaries approach human-level quality: over 5% of summaries from the best 175B model were given a score of 6 out of 7, and over 15% were given a 5 out of 7, scores which were also sometimes assigned to human-written summaries (Figure 3).”
-
E3 Recursively Summarizing Books with Human Feedback arXiv (ar5iv rendering), OpenAI authors Own record
“However, on average our model summaries are still significantly worse than human-written summaries (Figure 2(a))”
-
E4 OpenAI unveils model that can summarize books of any length VentureBeat · 23 September 2021
“OpenAI has developed an AI model that can summarize books of arbitrary length.”
Reasoning
OpenAI's announcement and paper (E1, E2) describe a GPT-3-based model that produces summaries of whole books, and VentureBeat reported independently on the same day that OpenAI had built a model that summarises books of any length (E4). OpenAI's own evaluation shows that only a minority of the summaries came close to human quality. Readers of the book gave a 6/7 rating about 5% of the time and a 5/7 rating about 15% of the time (E1, E2). The paper also says the model's summaries are, on average, significantly worse than human-written ones (E3). This matches the "mostly true" criterion: the system existed and summarised entire books, but its summaries were reasonable only in a minority of cases.
Cite this claim
Sam Altman, “OpenAI created a system that can generate reasonable summaries of entire books.” (said 23 September 2021). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_b59e7b714385, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_b59e7b714385
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Sam Altman
-
Mostly true
“not until 2020 did we train GPT-3, which was the first model that I think actually was over some threshold of usability.”
OpenAI trained GPT-3 in 2020, which Altman considers the first model above a threshold of usability.
-
Resolved true
“that it is so capable that it is discovering new knowledge, doing science, able to add huge economic value, create entire pieces of complex software.”
-
Mixed
“They now hallucinate a little bit.”
-
Mixed
“They don’t do anything unless you ask, right?”
AI models such as ChatGPT do not do anything unless a user asks them to.
-
Mostly true
“But in terms of figuring out what questions to ask or to work on something over a very long period of time, we are definitely not close to human performance.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.