Feels like a hundred years ago.
What's next, a virus from China? Such a fuss for nothing.
GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)
81–90 of 139 posts
Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a natural follow up question -- what kind of an escalation or message should frontier labs/companies publish to be seen as genuine and not marketing gimmick?
It's fine for the labs to publish model safety cards and stagger releases/limit it to a narrow test group as they are already doing, but saying they're doing it "because the models could be dangerous" comes off as unnecessary as best.
One of the main purposes of model cards, from the beginning, has been to outline the ways that a model could be harmful or dangerous, and mitigations that can be or have been taken to reduce those risks. How do you expect labs to publish model cards without talking about this rationale?
Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'd say creating a project is 5% of the job and maintaining it over time 95% of it.
It's true that they can start amazing projects without guidance but then the real work begins.
Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
For starters it makes you able to bypass having to go on Reddit to find incomplete trace of solution to some niche problem and acts as a sophisticated (but sometimes wrong) search engine. This already is worth every penny and improved my mental health immensely.
Fortunately you still get the reddit experience with AI. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1hxa3kj/ai_reached...
[dead]
Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)
#85It'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.
Yet it's 2026 and we see extreme examples of spam content and misinformation to the point that it's killing the internet, but AI companies have collectively decided to not care
Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
The president of the United States tweeted an AI generated image of himself as Jesus Christ descending from the sky and saving a sick person. I feel like that is a good example. Now multiply that by hundreds of millions of AI generated propaganda images across the world. And that’s even without touching the effect of fake videos on democracy or Elons pedo-bot that generates CSAM on demand of specific people…
I honestly feel like that's a counter-example. With AI he'd be tweeting some other nonsense. It's not like anyone saw the image and thought he actually was orange Jesus.
Multiple people have the same response, I randomly selected this one for follow up:
Yes, but two things were lost:
1) the need for skill or an accomplice. He _couldn’t_ tweet that image in 2016, not without first asking someone to photoshop it. And that need to engage in human to human communication is something truly fundamental that was changed and lost.
2) Any ambiguity or misunderstanding. Yes bad textual tweets exist for a long time in politics. But there IS something about images that is more powerful than text. The text „I’m Jesus Christ and god sent me to heal the sick“ would probably make the news, but a lot of people would go: „is he quoting the bible? What’s going on?“, not so much with Jesus Picture.
Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)
#87Back 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.
> It changes my whole profession on a level i couldn't even imagine
I assure, it doesn't.
Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can scaffold out a simple app pretty easily. Anything large or complex things break down. If you don’t know what you’re doing you end up leaking secrets like the dozens of examples we’ve seen so far.
You know what the problem is in software engineering? A LOT of people have no clue what good software engineering is. I was working in a company before which used md5 in 2015! Databases on the internet with a 5 character password. No tests. A person i know would have broken the whole production DB if i wouldn't have stoped the PR. Another ex-collegue thought its okay to 'encrypt' with a basic shift cyper creditcard d…
Yes the same applies to junior and inexperienced developers.
Re: GPT-2: Too Dangerous To Release (2019)
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
A large portion of the content on the internet is now generated by AI. You can and do have full conversations with bots and not know. I want to interact with humans not LLMs. There’s no way to combat it. An army of bots can post a specific rhetoric and it can and does sway people’s opinions. The new version of Digg was shut down because they couldn’t find a way to combat AI. They were at least trying to, other platfo…
But what is the social damage? Can you quantify the damage, even roughly?
It's likely nearly impossible to evaluate that in the short term; I think we're looking at generational damage, much of which won't be apparent for years to come.