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

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 10 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 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Wild that we just accept that today, honestly.

▲

SamBam 10 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 10 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?"