upvote
From today's perspective, it sure seems like it, probably because increased capabilities have generated a new kind of danger. Back then, they were worried about stuff like the model telling me dangerous knowledge.

I certainly think the labs have muddied the waters using safety for marketing, but that doesn't mean less capable models weren't more dangerous at one point.

reply
Extremely weak justification on their part, bordering on trolling. It's just marketing.

Easy access to malicious information hasn't proven to be the disaster these anti-prophets proclaim. For the last ~3 decades of widespread internet and search engines, you could trivially find all sorts of information (drug synthesis, explosives, etc.), and we're just fine.

(Corollary: easy access to good information did not make non-intellectual non-curious people smarter. Easy access to information does not have the consequences people immediately assume.)

reply
There’s this strain of thinking that’s complete alien to me, I can’t interpret what’s being said and it sounds incredibly aggressive. ex. our lead post asking if Sam Altman still thinks GPT-3 is unsafe to release, and I don’t understand what beliefs you don’t believe and who they is and why they’re just choosing to lie for marketing.

My guess is I’m unintentionally refusing implicit signal that you think it’s safe to release all models openly, because you have observed models finding a vulnerability in a JWT library. But that sounds like a straw man instead of a steel man. Idk. :/

reply