undefined | Better HN

0 pointsben_w6mo ago0 comments

> If we had developed LLMs in a lab and released them in the form of papers and Python projects with model weights with clear descriptions of what they're capable of, like a responsible scientific endeavor, then we'd not be seeing the problems we are, even with public access.

I'm now thinking of all of the times people here of sarcastically stated "OpenAI thought GPT-2 was too dangerous to release"*, as if danger only comes immediately and severely or not at all.

* wasn't even what OpenAI said, they just proposed setting a norm of caution because a release can't be undone

0 comments

dingnuts6mo ago

they meant that to be interpreted as a statement of how good GPT-2 is but the real problem is how they've marketed everything that came after to people who can't know better

it's EXACTLY the same situation as Musk selling "Full Self Driving" and then playing dumb when people go to sleep behind the wheel of their Tesla

These rich men should be in prison for this kind of false advertising

ben_wOP6mo ago

> they meant that to be interpreted as a statement of how good GPT-2 is

Every previous time someone says something like this, I've looked at the original blog post again just to make sure I didn't miss something.

OpenAI's own words for GPT-2 never read like a boast to me. Caution, not a boast.

News may have bigged it up, but news does that for everything.

I mean just compare it to the GPT-5 release: they're not shy or subtle when they actually want to boast.

jononor6mo ago

Note that OpenAI is not the same company now compared to then. All the cautious and responsible people have left or been forced out.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse