The person you’re responding to dodged (with a very fair argument), but I’ll bite the bullet here: not really, and I’m curious to hear what you think the damage could be.
I mean SOME criticism always has a basis, but that seemed to be a large part of the reason they published this technical demo: to get feedback and spark scientific discussion on the state of the art. They did publish it with prominent warnings to not trust the output as necessarily true, after all.
If the worry isn’t with primary users but with people using it to intentionally generate propaganda/falsehoods for others to consume… idk it seems like we’ve long passed that point with GPT-3.
So their goal was to gather feedback (read: criticism) but took it down after 3 days? In lieu of some sort of coercion (which, idk how you’d coerce Meta), it seems like they weren’t all that interested in feedback and discussion.
The fact that people responded negatively to a bad model (where “bad” can vary from unethical to dangerous to useless depending your vantage) has little to do with the anti-AI cottage industry.
Portraying criticisms as necessarily stemming from bad faith actors is exactly the opposite of fostering feedback and improvement.
I mean SOME criticism always has a basis, but that seemed to be a large part of the reason they published this technical demo: to get feedback and spark scientific discussion on the state of the art. They did publish it with prominent warnings to not trust the output as necessarily true, after all.
If the worry isn’t with primary users but with people using it to intentionally generate propaganda/falsehoods for others to consume… idk it seems like we’ve long passed that point with GPT-3.