Because there are easy workarounds. If it becomes an issue, you can quickly add large disclaimers informing people that there might be offensive output because, well, it's trained on texts written during the age of racism.

People typically get outraged when they see something they weren't expecting. If you tell them ahead of time, the user typically won't blame you (they'll blame themselves for choosing to ignore the disclaimer).

And if disclaimers don't work, rebrand and relaunch it under a different name.

▲

nine_k 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I wonder is you're being ironic here.

You speak as if the people who play to an outrage wave are interested in achieving truth, peace, and understanding. Instead the rage-mongers are there to increase their (perceived) importance, and for lulz. The latter factor should not be underappreciated; remember "meme stocks".

The risk is not large, but very real: the attack is very easy, and the potential downside, quite large. So not giving away access, but having the interested parties ask for it is prudent.

	▲	cj 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		While I agree we live in a time of outrage, that also works in your favor. When there’s so much “outrage” every day, it’s very easy to blend in to the background. You might have a 5 minute moment of outrage fame, but it fades away quick. If you truly have good intentions with your project, you’re not going to get “canceled”, your career won’t be ruined Not being ironic. Not working on a LLM project because you’re worried about getting canceled by the outrage machine is an overreaction IMO. Are you able to name any developer or researcher who has been canceled because of their technical project or had their careers ruined? The only ones I can think of are clearly criminal and not just controversial (SBF, Snowden, etc)