GPT-2 hindsight looks easy, but the safety tradeoff was far less clear at the time
_aidan_clark_ · x · 2026-07-21
The thread argues that holding back GPT-2 now looks obvious in hindsight, but says the people involved were working with incomplete information at the time.
The core point in the reply is that it is a mistake to look backward and conclude a model was safe, because that misses the uncertainty decision-makers faced when the release choice was made.
In other words, the discussion is about how AI safety judgments should account for uncertainty rather than retrospectively rewriting the risk assessment.
Related event: GPT-OSS Open-Source Debate: Risk Assessment vs. Regulation(22 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Economist Ben Moll: You Can Model Anthropic's 15% AI GDP Growth, But It Won't Happen — sebkrier · 2026-09-11
- Cohere Labs launches interactive tool mapping which tasks of 178 occupations AI can automate — Cohere_Labs · 2026-09-11
- AI researcher on SkyNews flags concerns over inequality, power and criminal misuse — schwarzjn_ · 2026-09-11
- VC compares AI doom rhetoric to pandemic-era fear messaging — StewartalsopIII · 2026-09-11
- Anthropic Insiders: Not Everyone at the Lab Believes in High p(doom) — anpaure · 2026-09-11
- Could 10k agents discover learning methods beyond backprop, or just tweak existing ones? — SeunghyunSEO7 · 2026-09-11