Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
It's clear that the parent didn't bother to read the link they shared, which articulates exactly this. That's embarrassing.

From the link:

> They summarized their findings from the nine months:

> 1. Humans find GPT-2 outputs convincing.

> 2. GPT-2 can be fine-tuned for misuse.

> 3. Detection is challenging (detection rates of ~95% for detecting 1.5B GPT-2-generated text by RoBERTa).

> We’ve seen no strong evidence of misuse so far.

> We need standards for studying bias.

>

> All these points are valid, and OpenAI did a great job identifying potential risks, especially misuse and biases, at an early stage.

> All these points are valid, and OpenAI did a great job identifying potential risks, especially misuse and biases, at an early stage.

Many of the OpenAI employees who were focused on these risks in GPT-2 later founded Anthropic, notably Dario [1]. Since the beginning and continuing through today Anthropic describes itself as an "AI safety and research company" [2]

I'm not sure if the OpenAI of today has the same focus on safety, or if they do the minimum to not look irresponsible given Anthropic's effort.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_Amodei

[2] https://www.anthropic.com/company

Just to be clear: that is quoted text from the source and not a statement I'm making, in case that's what you're suggesting here.