new | show | ask | jobs Github

speedgoose 7 hours ago

And GPT-2 1.5B was considered too dangerous to release.

They were perhaps right.

▲

Matl 4 hours ago | parent [-]

considered that by OpenAI for marketing purposes that is

But yes, perhaps it would have been better for all of us if they haven't.

▲

refulgentis 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In lockstep over the past month, a subset of people, un-labelable, unprompted, share this train of thought:

- Mythos wasn't released widely.

- But Anthropic shared info on it and said it was dangerous.

- Anthropic is a company.

- Companies like money.

- Therefore Mythos is marketing hype.

- Remember GPT-2? That also wasn't released. They said it was dangerous.

- But, GPT-3, GPT-4, GPT-5, etc. were released.

- Therefore GPT-2 being dangerous was marketing hype.

I've seen the idea that GPT-2 not being released was marketing hype at least 6 times since Mythos was shared.

It's Not Even Wrong, in the Pauli sense: they weren't selling anything! They weren't raising funding! What were they marketing!?

And there's a lot more elided from history, ex. they didn't have an API yet.

GPT-3 was released, a year or two later, and did have an API. But, no one used it, it wasn't good enough yet. And they did treat it as dangerous, it was wildly over-the-top manually monitored for anything resembling not-intended-use. I got permanently suspended for using the word "twink"

▲

Matl 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I've seen the idea that GPT-2 not being released was marketing hype at least 6 times since Mythos was shared.

That's not what I am saying.

It's not that GPT-2 not being released was marketing hype, it's that OpenAI themselves claiming it's too dangerous to release specifically, implying it's close to AGI, (or something like that), was marketing hype.

	▲	refulgentis 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That may sound more defensible to you, but its even more detached from reality. I feel very old right now because I actually read the thing at the time, but setting that aside, do you really think anyone thought or said GPT-2 was AGI? I don't think you do. I only mention reading it because that would clear it up, and you seem interested, and your parenthetical indicates A) you're aware you're claiming something a bit silly and B) you don't know what was actually said.