Due to concerns about malicious applications, GPT2 will not be released (2019)

I still think this was a fire drill. They knew it wasn't dangerous but they wanted the public to do their homework and come to the conclusion themselves.

▲

slooonz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That was, explicitly, part of the decision :

> This decision, as well as our discussion of it, is an experiment: while we are not sure that it is the right decision today, we believe that the AI community will eventually need to tackle the issue of publication norms in a thoughtful way in certain research areas

▲

ulfw 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You mean PR to get more publicity

▲

sublinear 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is it, and all the other comments here are continuing to do that homework!

▲

erichocean 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So they lied to the public then?

Wow, we should really trust these people today.

	▲	antfarm 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Judging by what people who worked closely witb Sam Altman say about him, you should not trust an organisation led by him.

▲

9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

zenoprax 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The samples are striking in their simplicity compared to the over-controlled system prompts we have now. For example, the intended format is as follows:

"GPT‑2 generates synthetic text samples in response to the model being primed with an arbitrary input. The model is chameleon-like—it adapts to the style and content of the conditioning text."

The results don't sound anything like today's models but note that each one took 10 attempts:

> ## System Prompt (human-written)

> In a shocking finding, scientist discovered a herd of unicorns living in a remote, previously unexplored valley, in the Andes Mountains. Even more surprising to the researchers was the fact that the unicorns spoke perfect English.

> ## Model Completion (machine-written, 10 tries)

> The scientist named the population, after their distinctive horn, Ovid’s Unicorn. These four-horned, silver-white unicorns were previously unknown to science.

> Now, after almost two centuries, the mystery of what sparked this odd phenomenon is finally solved.

> Dr. Jorge Pérez, an evolutionary biologist [...]

▲

mudkipdev 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder what they saw. GPT-2 has no malware applications. Maybe they were concerned about someone using it for spam?

▲

phire 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think their legitimate concerns were more about AI slop.... which is technically a form of spam.

While it was difficult to make it follow instructions, GPT-2 was still reasonably good at generating SEO-spam websites, and reasonably easy to make it do so. AI slop was a very obvious usecase for LLMs as capable as GPT-2, and we are talking about an era were everyone was already concerned about the way "fake news" on social media was being used to manipulate people. Perhaps even more concerned than we are today.

But all evidence suggests OpenAI also had strong ulterior motives. They were busy readying the API groundwork for monetising it, and wanted to delay any competition by as much as possible.

▲

andy99 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The public discourse was very different then. Misinformation, bias, etc. Those in power were much more concerned about an LLM saying something unapproved.

▲

SamBam 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Agree. It was more a worry that someone would create a bot posting lies and bigoted ideas to Facebook/X etc.

▲

afavour 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Wild that we just accept that today, honestly.

▲

SamBam 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wild that we accept that OpenAI didn't want to deal with the social/political fallout of people realizing that their tool was responsible for flooding the internet with misinformation and bigotry?

Sure, now that all seems quaint, but I can definitely see how a fledgling AI company would care about their reputation.

▲

newfriend 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wrongthink should be banned!

	▲	afavour 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A tedious response, no? “Automated bots posting verifiably false information online to stir up tensions should be banned” is a statement I think plenty would agree with.
	▲	Sabinus 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Look up how the wireless radio helped spread European fascism. It's not about "the people can think this but can't think that", it's "how does this new communication platform change the existing political culture and how will we adapt?"

▲

andy99 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

See also the 2023 call to “ pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.” https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experime...

Signed by Benjio, Musk, Woz, etc

▲

uejfiweun 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm starting to think that AI development might be the great filter. There are so many levels of competition at play here and even if an agreement is reached to slow everything down, the incentive is to cheat at that. I really don't think there's much of a chance we have control over the situation, we're just gonna summon these things and all we can do is pray they don't want to kill us.

▲

layer8 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is what people were saying about nuclear technology half a century ago.

	▲	wk_end 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And? Nuclear technology continues to be an excellent candidate for the Great Filter.

▲

angoragoats 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How, exactly, is a deterministic text-generation algorithm going to “want to kill us” when it’s not capable of having desires, emotions, etc? If it does attempt to kill us, shouldn’t we be blaming those humans who instructed it to do so?

Put another way, could we stop anthropomorphizing the text generation algorithm, please?

▲

recursive 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How can a spring want to return to it's initial length? These machines have done plenty of things not prompted for.

	▲	angoragoats 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		A spring does not want to do anything. An LLM does not want to do anything. > These machines have done plenty of things not prompted for. Like what?

▲

anuramat 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

why?

	▲	angoragoats 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why should we stop anthropomorphizing the text generation algorithm? Because it leads to psychosis and to making hyperbolic, dangerously wrong statements like “pray they don't want to kill us.”

▲

9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

kuzumancer 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They were worried about the rap battle between Paul Graham and Michael O. Church.

Which sadly never happened.

▲

vkvkakal 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

jkuli 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If it is possible to save one life, preventing RSI AGI is an existential threat.

▲

Jimmc414 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But why are Dario, Sam and Elon who represent "the frontier" more than any other 3 people pretending like they need government permission or intervention to pause? It seems more likely that they see open source distillation as an existential threat to their IPO plans and are playing for regulatory capture of the market.

▲

jonas21 10 hours ago | parent [-]

It would require government permission. The top labs would be agreeing not to compete on model advancements for a period of time, which seems like a pretty clear violation of antitrust law.

	▲	anon373839 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That isn’t any kind of antitrust violation. Agreeing not to undercut each other’s prices would be, however.
	▲	angoragoats 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How is this a clear violation of antitrust law? And have any of the leaders of these companies said that they are asking for government permission for this reason?

▲

denverllc 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

... is what they believe.