| ▲ | valleyer 4 hours ago |
| This is some serious revisionist history. GPT-2 wasn't instruction-following or even conversational. |
|
| ▲ | endymion-light 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| it's a joke about the quality of samsung tv's rather than a serious comment - i should have said a perceptron could hack a samsung tv |
|
| ▲ | michaelcampbell an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And yet Dario in his OpenAI days was proclaiming it too scary to be released. Now why does that sound familiar...? |
|
| ▲ | patrickmcnamara 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Hyperbole. |
| |
| ▲ | jdiff 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's really not. It was a fun toy but had very little utility. It could generate plausible looking text that collapsed immediately upon any amount of inspection or even just attention. Code generation wasn't even a twinkle in Altman's eye scanning orbs at that point. | | |
| ▲ | smoghat 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But like Mythos, it was too dangerous to release. https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/openai-gpt2-text-genera... | | |
| ▲ | wongarsu 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And the "too dangerous to release" capability was writing somewhat plausible news articles based on a headline or handwritten beginning of an article. In the same style as what you had written Today we call that "advanced autocomplete", but at the time OpenAI managed to generate a lot of hype about how this would lead to an unstoppable flood of disinformation if they allowed the wrong people access to this dangerous tool. Even the original gpt3 was still behind waitlists with manual approval |
| |
| ▲ | tomalbrc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Talking about revisionist… |
| |
| ▲ | valleyer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If so, I apologize. |
|
