7 ms·

yes, exactly, that's what they claimed that incoherent gibberish generator to be capable of.

• par1970 7d ago
  So you aren't claiming that they said GPT-2 was dangerous in the sense that it could disempower humanity, kill all humans, etc. You are just claiming that OpenAI execs said that GPT-2 might "generate misleading news articles, impersonate others online, automate the production of abusive or faked content to post on social media, automate the production of spam/phishing content." Then, what is unreasonable or bad about the OpenAI execs saying this in 2019?
  • vlyan 7d ago
    that it was bullshit and they knew it. GPT-2 wasn't capable of anything other than imitating a stroke victim.
    • par1970 7d ago
      How did they know that people wouldn't find a way to use "the dataset, training code, or GPT‑2 model weights" to "generate misleading news articles, impersonate others online, automate the production of abusive or faked content to post on social media, automate the production of spam/phishing content."? If I remember correctly, it seemed like a plausible outcome to me (especially spam and junk social media content). Was there some conclusive evidence that I was missing?
      • vlyan 7d ago
        yes, the conclusive evidence you're missing is that GPT-2 could do those things about as convincingly as a Markov chain.