[Matl]

> do you really think anyone thought or said GPT-2 was AGI?

> I don't think you do.

I don't think they did. I think the marketing around it was such as to imply to the general public that it's not that far from AGI/let their imagination run wild, because it's useful marketing.

Same way as Apple's marketing around the iPad was that it's the 'Super. (full stop) (space) Computer. (full stop)' They never say it's any kind of a 'supercomputer'. But they know how that is going to be interpreted by many. It's intentional marketing.

Same with OpenAI.

I do think you're playing obtuse at this point, if you don't get that.

[refulgentis]

I am not playing obtuse, and note “do you really think” is different from accusing someone of playing a character on purpose to gaslight you, especially when the “do you really think they said” is stapled to a long, kind, explication that your parenthetical says straight out you don’t know what was said, you’re guessing.

Your attempt to recount GPT-2 and what was said about it won’t make any sense to anyone who was present at the time, and you’ve circled back to root, “marketing”, again, for a company that was selling nothing and wouldn’t for years and wasn’t raising and wasn’t even mentioning AGI in connection with GPT2. It was just a text generator back then, though a curious one worth noting. It’s genuinely awe inspiring to see someone arguing gpt-2 was near AGI and that anyone at the time thought so or said so.

It’s not worth engaging further, especially with you starting to get nasty and project what’s in my head. Have a good day.