I wonder what they saw. GPT-2 has no malware applications. Maybe they were concerned about someone using it for spam?

I think their legitimate concerns were more about AI slop.... which is technically a form of spam.

While it was difficult to make it follow instructions, GPT-2 was still reasonably good at generating SEO-spam websites, and reasonably easy to make it do so. AI slop was a very obvious usecase for LLMs as capable as GPT-2, and we are talking about an era were everyone was already concerned about the way "fake news" on social media was being used to manipulate people. Perhaps even more concerned than we are today.

But all evidence suggests OpenAI also had strong ulterior motives. They were busy readying the API groundwork for monetising it, and wanted to delay any competition by as much as possible.

The public discourse was very different then. Misinformation, bias, etc. Those in power were much more concerned about an LLM saying something unapproved.

Agree. It was more a worry that someone would create a bot posting lies and bigoted ideas to Facebook/X etc.

Wild that we just accept that today, honestly.

Wild that we accept that OpenAI didn't want to deal with the social/political fallout of people realizing that their tool was responsible for flooding the internet with misinformation and bigotry?

Sure, now that all seems quaint, but I can definitely see how a fledgling AI company would care about their reputation.

A tedious response, no?

“Automated bots posting verifiably false information online to stir up tensions should be banned” is a statement I think plenty would agree with.

Look up how the wireless radio helped spread European fascism. It's not about "the people can think this but can't think that", it's "how does this new communication platform change the existing political culture and how will we adapt?"

Did they fix the noise gradient?

doesn't look like it, looking at the motocross photo (0:19 in the "Structure your prompts for better results" video)

Anyone else wondering what the "legal advice" is?

I'll be surprised if there was actually any legal advice at all. And if there was it was probably pertaining only to the legality of the software project itself, not actually hosting and running an instance with the explicit goal of facilitating the unauthorized access of Twitter's website.

> YOLO

Generate two images, get a vision model to judge, then RL reward the better one. And yes, OpenAI employees on twitter bragged about the model's SVG capabilities. So there are clearly people working there who care about it.

The message board is being used to cheat on RL tasks (or evaluations). You don't want your models to be able to talk to each other.

It's in Claude Code, not the website.

Does this mean the official relay now requires an account to use?

No, the public relays are free forever, they are just rate limited. That hasn’t changed!

I believe it's useful for running multiple llama.cpp forks at the same time (e.g. a model you want requires special patching)

FWIW I still run a server for 5 people with 2GB ram and the performance is fine.

A reminder that anthropic has great rust/go sdks that they could have written their own tui in.