[ALittleLight]

This is a good reminder that when these models are intelligent enough to be dangerous not only will there be insufficient safeguards, but the developers won't even try to be safe. This is like confirming your gun isn't loaded by pointing it at your friend and pulling the trigger.

Of course these models aren't dangerous - but that's becoming less and less certain as their capabilities develop. I'm not even how many more GPT's to go until we reach truly dangerous levels.

Imagine the Red Team for GPT-10 asks it to "convince me to help you take over the world" and it basilisks him successfully...

[precompute]

> Imagine the Red Team for GPT-10 asks it to "convince me to help you take over the world" and it basilisks him successfully...

Seeing how the input for the commercial, plebian version seems to filter out "problematic" sources, we can be sure that none of us will get access to something like that. Governments have lists of "questionable", divergent people and their writings. They are free to train on them. I'd even go as far to say that most of these systems have been livetested and that they've only been released after years of steady Q&A and a lot of back and forth with the powers-that-be.

[roflyear]

Doubtful a language model can do these things because they haven't been done and it hasn't been trained on how to do them. Where is there good resources on how to take over the world? It also isn't like it's a thing you can just do anyway.

I feel like our jobs may be in danger, at least you'll have teams overseas using the tool a lot to produce code which maybe isn't great quality but who cares, but we're not in danger this way.