Comment by noosphr
5 days ago
We've been told models are too dangerous since gpt2.
There comes a point where you not only want the boy to stop crying wolf, but hopefully be eaten by one.
5 days ago
We've been told models are too dangerous since gpt2.
There comes a point where you not only want the boy to stop crying wolf, but hopefully be eaten by one.
That example is brought up a lot, but in retrospect the concerns about Gpt2 were pretty valid: https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/17/openai-text-generator-dang...
>OpenAI said its new natural language model, GPT-2, was trained to predict the next word in a sample of 40 gigabytes of internet text. The end result was the system generating text that “adapts to the style and content of the conditioning text,” allowing the user to “generate realistic and coherent continuations about a topic of their choosing.” The model is a vast improvement on the first version by producing longer text with greater coherence.
>But with every good application of the system, such as bots capable of better dialog and better speech recognition, the non-profit found several more, like generating fake news, impersonating people, or automating abusive or spam comments on social media.
Does OpenAI suspend users that they detect impersonating people, spamming people or generating social media posts though? It feels like they belled the cat just to charge a toll for abusive usage, and now that we've seen LLMs used for real warfare, the moralist angle isn't very defensible. OpenAI and Anthropic are both willing to help kill people if the price is right.
No, they don't
> or automating abusive or spam comments on social media.
Actually, the biggest problem is the automation of inane comments on X. Which is admittedly quite surprising - I would have agreed with OpenAI at the time.
I don’t fully agree with this sentiment. Just because we were told something and it didn’t come true before, it doesn’t mean it can’t come true now, and that the capabilities are there now.
At this point we have enough of real evidence from project glasswing like the massive Firefox security patches from Mythos findings. This isn’t crying wolf.
I’m very glad that they’re actually being grownups and not yolo’ing something this important, and are working with groups until we can secure critical infrastructure before making this more available.
And Guinness thought the t-test was too dangerous to announce publicly over a century ago
I don't get the analogy.
Guinness didn't want to make it public because he was afraid competition would start using it, and then lose his company's advantage.
In the current context, the retention didn't happen because of Anthropic. On the contrary, the company wanted to offer Mythos/Fable.
I think that is a little bit disingenuous, Guinness just saw it as a trade secret. Not something that was too dangerous to release to the public for the public's own 'good', just that it could be bad for their business.
[dead]