Maybe because Dario was actually reasoning through potential risks, rather than blindly thinking everything will be okay?

▲

redox99 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Thinking GPT2 was too dangerous is and was absurd.

▲

gwerbin 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's dramatic for sure, but at the time it was genuinely alarming to think through the implications of a machine being able to generate plausibly human-authored text. I think many of the alarming implications have in fact come to pass, and the world is a more strange and dangerous place than it was before.

▲

NiloCK 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At that time, nobody believed a dead internet was technically feasible. Maybe this is hard to remember now.

The "danger" was in terms of spam / misinformation proliferation, not the same category of capabilities adjacent risks current discussed.

You can hold your own opinions on spam/misinformation as a problem, but to say there was no credibly anticipated outsized downside to a sudden jump in human-passing text generation feels pretty off to me.

▲

redox99 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I remember the arguments back then. Those alarmists were wrong. Nothing happened or could've happened just because you could generate drunken ramblings.

It's the kind of people that want to ban anything because of some theoretical small harm is technically possible. We're lucky it's not more prevalent or we'd still be in the stone age.

▲

zahlman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's amazing to me that people actually thought GPT2 produced "human-passing" text, while I'm still tripping over obvious LLMisms in the output of recent models on a daily basis.

(It's also amazing to me that it took mere minutes for this observation, deep in a sub-thread, to get downvoted without any reply, with no obvious reason for it.)

	▲	NiloCK 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		People may perceive you to be cheaply mischaracterizing the argument. Nobody believed or suggested that GPT2 could do longform or produce novel text that stood up against careful scrutiny as insightful or well informed. But because the capabilities were novel, people would have no strong alternative than to believe some person wrote it. You current tripping over LLMisms is irrelevant. You have years of antibodies, both personal and herd-immunity (eg, the many, many articles and comments that describe LLMisms).
	▲	aesthesia an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		LLM-isms are much less prevalent in base models, which is what GPT-2 was. It had significant problems with maintaining coherence, but GPT-2 generated text did not have the obvious tells of today's LLMs.

▲

cmrdporcupine 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

All that happened was announcing said potential risks and then continuing to launch and push and release it anyways. Something that Anthropic continues to do under his leadership.

Google also analyzed for risks earlier in development of "Meena" and "Bard" and chose not to release, instead. And then got caught flatfooted when OpenAI did so anyways. (They also I think didn't really see a compelling business case for public propagation of it, either).

It starts to look very much like what is really happening with Anthropic is a lot of cynical attempts at regulatory capture. Make grand proclamations. Get your stuff out there first. Ask for regulation and then kick the ladder away from underneath you. But they did it clumsily and failed to grease the right palms.