|
|
|
|
|
|
by supern0va
8 days ago
|
|
|
It's clear that the parent didn't bother to read the link they shared, which articulates exactly this. That's embarrassing. From the link: > They summarized their findings from the nine months: > 1. Humans find GPT-2 outputs convincing. > 2. GPT-2 can be fine-tuned for misuse. > 3. Detection is challenging (detection rates of ~95% for detecting 1.5B GPT-2-generated text by RoBERTa). > We’ve seen no strong evidence of misuse so far. > We need standards for studying bias. > > All these points are valid, and OpenAI did a great job identifying potential risks, especially misuse and biases, at an early stage. |
|
|
Many of the OpenAI employees who were focused on these risks in GPT-2 later founded Anthropic, notably Dario [1]. Since the beginning and continuing through today Anthropic describes itself as an "AI safety and research company" [2]
I'm not sure if the OpenAI of today has the same focus on safety, or if they do the minimum to not look irresponsible given Anthropic's effort.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_Amodei
[2] https://www.anthropic.com/company