[djvdq]

Of course they are doing PR stunts to kepp media talking about them.

Remember Altman saying that they shouldn't release GPT-2 because of it being too dangerous? It's the same thing with this Q* thing.

[FeepingCreature]

Because it could be used to generate spam, yes, and he was right about that.

And to set a precedent that models should be released cautiously, and he was right about that too, and it is to our detriment that we don't take that more seriously.

[mdekkers]

> it is to our detriment that we don't take that more seriously.

Why?

[FeepingCreature]

Because when a network turns out to be dangerous in some unexpected way, you cannot exactly unrelease it.

[mdekkers]

Dangerous, how? All this vague handwavey fear mongering doesn’t really do it for me. Specifics are more my thing.

[FeepingCreature]

What makes you positively confident that a network cannot be dangerous?

[mdekkers]

I’m not making any claims about the danger or lack of danger. Anyway, in the absence of specifics, this is a boring conversation.

[dmix]

Helen Toner board member accused Sam/OpenAI for releasing GPT too early, there were people who wanted to keep it locked away for those concerns, which largely haven’t come true (a lot of people don’t understand how spam detection works and overrate the impact of deepfakes).

Company’s have competing interests and personalities. That’s normal. But there is no indication that GPT was held back for marketing.