“Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
1–10 of 189 posts
Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
#2The "too dangerous to release" line was definitely a marketing stunt.
OpenAI already used the same playbook with GPT-2 in 2019, and some of the same people involved back then are now doing it again at Anthropic with Mythos.
Same safety-branding DNA, different company, and people are falling for it again.
Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
#3> Resource Limit Is Reached The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later.
I guess it was too dangerous to even read the article
Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
#4Jesus has microwaved a burrito so hot he can not eat it, refuses to show the world, citing dangerous omnipotence paradox.
Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
#5Mythos had to silence you apparently
Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
#6Silenced immediately.
Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
#7> Resource Limit Is Reached The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later. I guess it was too dangerous to even read the article
Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
#8The "too dangerous to release" line was definitely a marketing stunt. OpenAI already used the same playbook with GPT-2 in 2019, and some of the same people involved back then are now doing it again at Anthropic with Mythos. Same safety-branding DNA, different company, and people are falling for it again.
Same people, actually. It’s a Dario move.
Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
#9My thinking is that if it really was super duper then Anthropic could charge eye watering amounts and have willing customers and set up expectations going forward that SOTA costs a lot to use.
That they don’t suggests that really it is only incrementally better than Opus 4.7 and that the market won’t bear a price increase that makes it economical to serve let alone profit from serving.
So the cynical me imagines execs sitting around the table and worrying that releasing it at anywhere close to break even would risk actually hurting the brand instead of setting them up as a premium company, and this at a time just before ipo when they can ill afford that rumour.
So they wonder what to do, and think playing national security card is the obvious way out. It’s incrementally better enough to find bugs that previous sota missed, it doesn’t get used widely so it’s cheap to serve and they get the good publicity without the economic scrutiny?
Making a loss selling to a small number of users using it in a limited way is entirely affordable. Making a loss selling it at scale is correspondingly unaffordable?
Re: “Too dangerous to release” or just too expensive?
#10The "too dangerous to release" line was definitely a marketing stunt. OpenAI already used the same playbook with GPT-2 in 2019, and some of the same people involved back then are now doing it again at Anthropic with Mythos. Same safety-branding DNA, different company, and people are falling for it again.
ChatGPT literally tells people to kill themselves but apparently that’s not too dangerous and this is.
It’s bad enough that it’s a marketing stunt, totally agree with you. But in the face of what we have seen and how they act like it’s no big deal, it’s just gross.