|
|
|
|
|
|
by tivert
751 days ago
|
|
|
> If you look at the current public models, you are correct. They're not looking at the current public models. > Look at what people say on this very site — complaining that models have been "lobotomised" (I dislike this analogy, but whatever) "in the name of safety" — and ask yourself: what could these models do before public release? Give politically incorrect answers and cause other kinds of PR problems? I don't think it's reasonable to take "lobotomised" to mean the models had more general capability before their "lobotomization," which you seem to be implying. |
|
|
If by that you mean "will explain in detail how to make chemical weapons, commit fraud, automate the production of material intended to incite genocide" etc.
You might want to argue they're not good enough to pose a risk yet — and perhaps they still wouldn't be dangerously competent even without these restrictions — but even if so, consider that Facebook, with a much simpler AI behind its feed, was blamed for not being able to prevent its systems being used for the organisation of the (still ongoing) genocide in Myanmar: tools, all tools including AI, make it easier to get stuff done.
> I don't think it's reasonable to take "lobotomised" to mean the models had more general capability before their "lobotomization," which you seem to be implying.
I don't like the use of the word, precisely because of that — it's either wildly overstating what happens to the AI, or understating what happens to humans.
And yes, when calling them out on this, I have seen that at least some people using this metaphor seem to genuinely believe that what I would call "simply continuing the same training regime that got it this far in the first place" is something they are unable to distinguish from what happened to Rosemary Kennedy (and yes, I did use her as the example when that conversation happened).