Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

naokishibuya.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 139 posts

Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

#31

Post by realusername »

Qhemlomo wrote: post #21
minimaxir wrote: post #8

Back in 2019, it was more fair to have caution around the larger GPT-2 models since robust text generation (by 2019 standards) was a complete unknown. For something like Mythos in 2026, where now the social implications of better LLMs are more understood, it's more fair to call it (EDIT: specifically, the declaration of its danger) a marketing gimmick.

How is this a gimmick? It changes my whole profession on a level i couldn't even imagine how we would 'solve' software engineering.

We still didn't "solve" software engineering, try to give Claude code access to your friends or family and see what they do with it.

Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

#32

Post by qurren »

cjjfjjfjf wrote: post #6

In hindsight, they were entirely correct. The social damage caused by low cost content generation that’s hard to distinguish from human authorship is astronomical. You don’t need to entertain the more ridiculous doomsday scenarios to wish that this technology had never been created.

On the other hand, maybe it makes people just get off the internet and value in-person interactions more.

I've stopped scrolling social media and tired of seeing fake landscapes, fake foods, and fake cities that don't exist.

Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

#33

Post by redsocksfan45 »

boelboel wrote: post #28
cjjfjjfjf wrote: post #6

In hindsight, they were entirely correct. The social damage caused by low cost content generation that’s hard to distinguish from human authorship is astronomical. You don’t need to entertain the more ridiculous doomsday scenarios to wish that this technology had never been created.

A lot of low cost content generation would've come regardless with something like 50% of the developing world getting access to mobile internet between 2018-2026 and social media incentivizing certain types of content (monetizing). But AI certainly didn't help.

[dead]

Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

#34

Post by pixl97 »

Qhemlomo wrote: post #19
cjjfjjfjf wrote: post #6

In hindsight, they were entirely correct. The social damage caused by low cost content generation that’s hard to distinguish from human authorship is astronomical. You don’t need to entertain the more ridiculous doomsday scenarios to wish that this technology had never been created.

I don't want to stop progress just because its hard to imagine how it will transform our society. I want to see a Star Trek economy/society in my lifetime. I only life once. Btw. AI/LLM/Machine learning is the gateway technology for robotics, this will affect even more.

>I want to see a Star Trek economy/society in my lifetime. I only life once.

While Star Trek is fiction, it's probably a good idea to understand the history of how the ST utopia came about, at the cost of a third of the worlds population and decades of suffering.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/World_War_III

Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

#36

Post by ThejaCH »

rfoo wrote: post #23
wongarsu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different company. And doing security reviews with Fable is pretty annoying, it loves to downgrade to Opus GPT-5.5 seems more dangerous in those regards

> Different company Same people.

Lol, funny but makes me uneasy

Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

#37

Post by jansan »

Same vibes:

In 2000 Sony "declared that the company’s PlayStation2 has been hit with export restriction because it could be used for military purposes"

"Trade officials said they initially placed restrictions on the game console because PlayStation2’s high-speed graphic processing could be used for missile guidance."

[1] https://variety.com/2000/biz/news/playstation2-export-regs-e...

Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

#38

Post by Qhemlomo »

realusername wrote: post #31
Qhemlomo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this a gimmick? It changes my whole profession on a level i couldn't even imagine how we would 'solve' software engineering.

We still didn't "solve" software engineering, try to give Claude code access to your friends or family and see what they do with it.

My partner wrote an android app which was doing what she wanted to do. She did this experiment 5 month ago and she did this in one day.

My wife has 0 knowledge how any of this works.

That was shocking to see.

Progress is not stoping and Fable proves that.

Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

#39

Post by [deleted] »

cjjfjjfjf wrote: post #6

In hindsight, they were entirely correct. The social damage caused by low cost content generation that’s hard to distinguish from human authorship is astronomical. You don’t need to entertain the more ridiculous doomsday scenarios to wish that this technology had never been created.

[deleted]

Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)

#40

Post by jrflo »

It's really interesting how back then no one was considering these tools for coding at all. Today, the hype around Mythos is mostly around security vulnerabilities, while in the original GPT 2 post they don't mention coding once. The "danger" was probably spam content and mis-information.
Post reply on HN