[allencheng]

I agree, any morally conscious founder should build in extra safeguards to stifle the bad edge cases and launch only after pretty thorough testing. Even an immoral founder who wants to avoid bad PR would do so.

Ideally all creators to be as thoughtful and careful as you. But we all know 1) there will be plenty of builders will build and launch regardless of how ready the app is, 2) users happily use whatever's engaging, convenient, and low-cost, while ignoring problems with privacy, security, and whether the product is net negative for a % of users (see TikTok, Twitter, Whisper).

If the technology is here, then the products will exist, and regulation isn't going to come in time to stop it.

[ericjang]

I feel that overestimation of fundamental capability is actually the cause of many morality/safety issues, if not at least a degradation of user experience (automated voice menus).

The big difference here is that TikTok, Twitter, Whisper actually have working technology, in spite of ethical concerns. What I am saying is that the people who want to use GPT-3 for business use case X, Y, and Z probably have not thought deeply enough about the limitations/implications of large language model methodology on specific nuances of X, Y, Z tasks.

Have you considered the fact that GPT-3 can't actually look up any information? Consider the implications of that before suggesting that GPT-3 could be used for therapy.

[lumost]

While GPT-3 cannot lookup information, a service using GPT-3 could. For instance one could include the past dialog/facts cleverly presented in the context window.

How well this would work in practice is up for debate.