One of the reasons is ensuring that unsafe generated text will not make it back to the internet.

OpenAI has strict requirements for the usage of GPT-3. For instance, you cannot automate posting to social media without a human in the middle.

How else would you be able to sell a $1 Billion exclusive license to Microsoft?

The concern, nominally, is that it’s too good. They’re worried that it'll lead to a huge influx of things like spam comments and fake news articles.

That's the first time I've heard of a company being worried that their product is too good.

This is legitimately dangerous technology. It probably(?) wouldn't pass the Turing Test, but it would fool a lot of people.

I wish Microsoft would have worried that Windows was too good, and never have released it for this reason. Then we wouldn't have had to go through the whole Windows thing.

> If it’s so good then why not just make it available?

OpenAI is pivoting to corporate evil, and to do that properly they need proprietary assets to rent out.

Because of vast piles of bad science fiction being taken as fact and outright hysteria.

> Because of vast piles of bad science fiction being taken as fact

None of these systems could work if only facts were used as input. Maybe some "factual" score could be presented with the data, but wow, that's a philosophical problem there.

I think the reasoning was that GPT-3 could easily be used to fill the world with realistic bullshit that would take ages to debunk.

As if this stopped anyone ever! This logic is immediately rationalized with the famous "Someone will do it anyhow!" statement.

I think other comments are more valid. Sale potential. Buyouts.

surely the creators know that sooner or later the cat will escape the bag...

They bet with Microsoft on automating programmers (or at least coders)