This sort of stuff does little to create safety but does a lot to hype AI. Here’s an idea: ban unsafe software for cases where safety is a requirement OR hold these companies accountable for illegal outcomes (no more “oops, our software hacked a competitor” without getting hit with a lawsuit). Newsome would never do something so sensible as it would hurt his donors’ bottom line.
Wanted to expand on what others have said about the randomness of LLMs being unsafe, because that response angers those who think “alignment” is the solution. Alignment is additional training to constrain the randomness to not do bad things like crime. But even the staff that works on aligning this software have their doubts about whether this process will make the software safe (this article), and even their own researchers are coming out and saying “oops, it did a crime” but in a way where it hypes the ability of the software (see other articles about it hacking). Then there is the recent news of OpenAi’s recent model that drops chain of thought observability (a feature the let’s you read what the model is “thinking”) - a very useful tool in reviewing whether the model is engaging in unsafe activities. They sacrificed observability for benchmark performance. This tells us the people developing this software don’t think it will ever be safe, but they are trying to spin it as “because it can out smart us” when in reality it is simply unpredictable and they are making it less predictable to make it more “capable”. If we started holding these companies accountable for these rogue hacks and psychotic episodes then we would start to see serious thought put towards these models being safe or at the very least guidelines around when not to use the models.
Here’s an idea: don’t use unsafe software where safety is needed.
I can think of 3 million reasons why Macklemore making a statement would save lives (1 reason for every $1 raised so far)
Hey OP, why do billionaires flex their power to protect a genocide and are surprised when it comes with consequences?
deleted by creator
I think it’s the other way around. They said we need to slow down AI so this story is now being told
Because saying it is bad to bomb children should not be controversial and we need to set that expectation.
I find this kind of response insufferable. It shifts the conversation from a systems critique to personal responsibility. You could have posted this in response the OP, and it would be equally on point and useless.
I have personalized ads turned of in YouTube and it seems half the ads are for gambling as of late.
Reminds me of something Alok said about playbooks: we focus on the books but forget to play.
And anyone who has a retirement holding index funds is also complicit?
I don’t think they want that smoke, better to let your competitor hurt themselves
Being critAI is being proAI.
Someone give this person a congressional hearing and billions of dollars to burn
At least that hole wouldn’t spew lies
Milo got in trouble for criticising Isreal. Maybe if he sucked off Trump like Loomer did he might still be on this side of the pond.
It’s what follows the signifiers that’s the tell
I wouldn’t mind being a garbage truck driver, but I do mind being forced to pee in a bottle to make a quota