>It's not a decision to go with something simple, it's a process that starts with it.
Of course. I just worry that starting with GPT-2 or 3 will be starting with something too complex that can't be as easily adjusted to all of the functionality that we may want. Using something like AIML as a starting point seems to me, and I could definitely be wrong, like a more effective start than jumping straight into a complex system that may not be easily adaptable.
>OTOH, very task-specific directives for a small environment (like Anon's flat/bedroom) are probably doable in the very near future if not today.
Definitely. That said, actions would likely have to be programmed in individually or connected to some sort of learning algorithm that can be taught a task over time. For example, you can tell your robowaifu to turn on the light switch, it won't know what you are asking it to do, and then after you show it an example of the action you want it to do upon being given an instruction it learns to do that thing. All of this would have to be its own function beyond the communication function itself. GPT-3 or 2 would have no better capability of understanding language well enough to take a command and act on it than a voice recognition command, but my point is that while they may run simultaneously and with some integration they are inherently different systems. I think that differentiation is important.
>I think all of us want the world.
And I think that is a good thing. High hopes will drive more ambitious innovation. Still, I don't even think that we have a general list of features that would be desired, even if they were impossible given present tech. Honestly, there is fantastic work being done in the fields of AI, machine learning, natural language processing, and neurology. Every year we are inching our way closer and closer to higher level computation, and if the goal is to make an android I don't think it would do much harm to at least list the furthest extent that we want, that we realistically want, and the bare minimum that we need. Being able to categorize what is actually possible and what isn't can be very useful, and even the impossible things can further inspire.
I can't be entirely sure, but I believe AI Dungeon uses GPT-2. There was an effort on 4chan to make their own version because the main AI Dungeon wasn't very good with lewds and ended up doing a damn good job at reverse engineering and replicating the system. The problem was, even at its most optimized it took about 1-2 minutes on a decent computer to generate a couple sentences. This wouldn't be a problem when run through a server, but I don't think a program with so many perimeters can be effectively trimmed down without losing a lot of functionality. Using it as a system to check the accuracy or improve the accuracy of a speech to text program may not be necessary though, as there are already pretty decent speech to text programs.