[realce]

None of these uses - most of which benefit a slim percentage of society or are needlessly complicated by this technology - outweigh the severe downsides to society. It's the apex of foolishness to act glibly about this.

This all ends extremely badly.

[rebeccaskinner]

Whether the upsides outweigh the downsides or not is a different discussion. My point is that there are plenty of ways someone might use this technology. If you do think that this technology is a net negative to society and should be controlled or prohibited, then it's still important to understand the potential ways someone might want to apply it so that you can be prepared to make your argument.

Personally, I have mixed feelings. I think that most of the outcomes we're most concerned about are going to happen one way or another, and developing in public or even commoditization of access to it is going to be a net reduction in harm over locking it up and pretending it doesn't exist while allowing people (and nations) with the resources to run large models in secret to develop and use the technology against people who are ignorant of what's possible.

[mhuffman]

The counterpoint is that some or all of these could make money and not enough people care how it ends if money is being made. I suspect it will have to take a terrorist plot using generative AI or something similarly significant to shut the door and even then it will be disallowed by us commoners, not the big four or five AI companies and not to the rest of the world.

[tonetegeatinst]

Most people don't need to know how to code or have access to hacking tools. Their are such limited use cases for such tools and a great deal of harm can be caused the abuse of them.