>but what is his reasoning for not publishing it now, in 2026?

What's the point of publishing it when it'll likely be outclassed by gpt-oss?

Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but I suspect the reason is to rub his nose in the duplicity or naivety depending on how generous you're feeling. Publishing the model would be a confession that he was wrong.

AI policy is being shaped somewhat by the things Sam and Dario say. So even if you're not feeling vindictive, it's probably good to keep a track record of the previous things they have said as a Bayesian prior. People who don't know better listen to these people, and maybe they shouldn't.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you want to dunk on sam for "it's too dangerous to publish GPT-3", you hardly need the release of gpt-3 to prove your point. All the other open model releases already provide pretty good evidence. Moreover the fact that the model wasn't release hardly points to the fact that he wanted to save face or whatever. Most AI labs don't release their old proprietary models, so the fact that gpt-3 wasn't released tells us very little.

▲

whimsicalism 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wasn't the whole point of not releasing because they wanted to normalize the process/concerns for future actually dangerous releases?

I think the release of kimi k3 is definitely arguably dangerous, we're already seeing consequences of elite-tier cyberoffense capabilities.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

nkmnz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Thank you, I couldn't have said that in a better way.