35 ms·

I wonder what they saw. GPT-2 has no malware applications. Maybe they were concerned about someone using it for spam?

andy99 19d ago
The public discourse was very different then. Misinformation, bias, etc. Those in power were much more concerned about an LLM saying something unapproved.
- SamBam 19d ago
  Agree. It was more a worry that someone would create a bot posting lies and bigoted ideas to Facebook/X etc.
  - afavour 19d ago
    Wild that we just accept that today, honestly.
    - newfriend 19d ago
      Wrongthink should be banned!
      - Sabinus 19d ago
        Look up how the wireless radio helped spread European fascism. It's not about "the people can think this but can't think that", it's "how does this new communication platform change the existing political culture and how will we adapt?"
      - afavour 19d ago
        A tedious response, no? “Automated bots posting verifiably false information online to stir up tensions should be banned” is a statement I think plenty would agree with.
    - SamBam 19d ago
      Wild that we accept that OpenAI didn't want to deal with the social/political fallout of people realizing that their tool was responsible for flooding the internet with misinformation and bigotry? Sure, now that all seems quaint, but I can definitely see how a fledgling AI company would care about their reputation.
phire 19d ago
I think their legitimate concerns were more about AI slop.... which is technically a form of spam. While it was difficult to make it follow instructions, GPT-2 was still reasonably good at generating SEO-spam websites, and reasonably easy to make it do so. AI slop was a very obvious usecase for LLMs as capable as GPT-2, and we are talking about an era were everyone was already concerned about the way "fake news" on social media was being used to manipulate people. Perhaps even more concerned than we are today. But all evidence suggests OpenAI also had strong ulterior motives. They were busy readying the API groundwork for monetising it, and wanted to delay any competition by as much as possible.

The public discourse was very different then. Misinformation, bias, etc. Those in power were much more concerned about an LLM saying something unapproved.

SamBam 19d ago
Agree. It was more a worry that someone would create a bot posting lies and bigoted ideas to Facebook/X etc.
- afavour 19d ago
  Wild that we just accept that today, honestly.
  - newfriend 19d ago
    Wrongthink should be banned!
    - Sabinus 19d ago
      Look up how the wireless radio helped spread European fascism. It's not about "the people can think this but can't think that", it's "how does this new communication platform change the existing political culture and how will we adapt?"
    - afavour 19d ago
      A tedious response, no? “Automated bots posting verifiably false information online to stir up tensions should be banned” is a statement I think plenty would agree with.
  - SamBam 19d ago
    Wild that we accept that OpenAI didn't want to deal with the social/political fallout of people realizing that their tool was responsible for flooding the internet with misinformation and bigotry? Sure, now that all seems quaint, but I can definitely see how a fledgling AI company would care about their reputation.

phire 19d ago

I think their legitimate concerns were more about AI slop.... which is technically a form of spam. While it was difficult to make it follow instructions, GPT-2 was still reasonably good at generating SEO-spam websites, and reasonably easy to make it do so. AI slop was a very obvious usecase for LLMs as capable as GPT-2, and we are talking about an era were everyone was already concerned about the way "fake news" on social media was being used to manipulate people. Perhaps even more concerned than we are today. But all evidence suggests OpenAI also had strong ulterior motives. They were busy readying the API groundwork for monetising it, and wanted to delay any competition by as much as possible.