Another great example of the HN mindset. How can you say "their safety layer clearly failed" without being able to acknowledge that they should be held responsible for that failure and that we should work to reduce the likelihood of similar failures in the future? If a car, rope, or drill had some sort of failure in their manufacturing that killed people, those companies would be held responsible. Why can't we do the same with OpenAI?
This isn't a desire for "the digital world to be devoid of risks", it is a desire for people and companies in the digital world to be held responsible for the harm they are causing. Yet, people here seem to believe that no one should ever be held responsible for the damage caused by the software they create.
We have many tools in this life that can maim and kill people and we keep them anyway because they are very useful for other purposes. It’s best to exercise some personal responsibility, including not allowing a 16 year old child unattended access to the internet.
Yeah, that is why we don’t have any regulations on the manufacturing and sale of stuff like guns or drugs. The only thing in the way of a 16 year old having unfettered access is personal responsibility.
That statement is going to be true for anything short of a complete Panopticon where everyone and everything is watched 24/7 to nip any potential harm in the bud.
If you're not okay with that arrangement (why not?), then we're left to argue about which level of "will occasionally kill children" is acceptable.
So what's the alternative? Pervasive censorship and horrible privacy and freedom-of-speech destroying legislation like UK's Online Safety Act?
I'm not looking forward to the day when half of the Internet will require me to upload my ID to verify that I'm an adult, and the other half will be illegal/blocked because they refuse to do the verification. But yeah, think of the children!
The alternative is as usual, getting certain individuals to the court and making them pay for the damage or even to go to jail, instead of preemptively trying to give them a holy cow status.
Unpopular, but backed by numbers: school shootings are predominantly media hype.
There are a total of 50,000 gun deaths in the United States each year. Half of those are suicide. The total number of fatalities from all school shootings in the US since 1990 is 536, with roughly 1100 injuries over the same period.
School shootings are very disturbing, but they are also flashy and attract media coverage, and so they are overblown, especially relative to other gun deaths. But I think human psychology leads people to see higher risk in situations where they feel like they have no control. The idea of sending your kid off to school and having them get killed evokes sort of the same helpless feeling as the feeling around a plane crashing when you're a passenger. But when it's inner city gang violence, or a depressed man killing himself in his garage, we don't seem to care as much.
This also plays into the narrative around police shootings. There are about 1100 people killed by cops every year in the United States, and that number has stayed pretty consistent over the last decade. But our narrative around it is out of proportion to the actual number of people killed because of the circumstances around the killing.
In any case, it's often easier to articulate the cost of freedom rather than its value.
hmm, tell that to parents whose kids were killed, or who are genuinely freaked out that there is a chance that their kid could die when they send them to school
as a parent who moved to the US and encountered this fear for the first time -- a fear that's just not present in other countries because while anything can happen anywhere, the chances are much much lower. why? not because there aren't crazy people in other countries, but because they don't have easy access to guns
> so they are overblown, especially relative to other gun deaths
actually, it's the other way around; it's the "other gun deaths" that are _under-valued_ and often ignored in the gun debate -- we should be talking about those _more_ not talking about school shootings less
50K gun deaths a year in the US is absolutely bonkers compared to other developed countries, and on par with Central America per-capita; and even if half are suicides, many who commit suicide may not have done so if guns weren't so readily accessible (sure there are other ways to do, but it's not as easy)
> plays into the narrative around police shootings. There are about 1100 people killed by cops every year in the United States
the reason for the narrative, is that in no other other advanced democracy on earth is there such a high rate of police killing civilians (when calculated per capita) -- it's not even close
they get attention because police shouldn't be killing civilians in the first place; it's pretty simple
if the USA didn't have such an obsession with guns, we wouldn't even be having this conversation
Roughly an hour after this comment was made, someone walked into the church at a Catholic school, killed an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old, shot 17 other people including 14 children, and then turned the gun on himself.[1] "Predominantly media hype" indeed.
Maybe I don’t understand well enough. Could anyone highlight what the problems are with this fix?
1. If ‘bad topic’ detected, even when model believes it is in ‘roleplay’ mode, pass partial logs, attempting to remove initial roleplay framing, to second model. The second model should be weighted for nuanced understanding, but safety-leaning.
2. Ask second model: ‘does this look like roleplay, or user initiating roleplay to talk about harmful content?’
3. If answer is ‘this is probably not roleplay’, silently substitute model into user chat which is weighted much more heavily towards ‘not engaging with roleplay, not admonishing, but gently suggesting ‘seek help’ without alienating user.’
The problem feels like any observer would help, but none is being introduced.
I understand this might be costly, on a large scale, but that second model doesn’t need to be very heavy at all imo.
EDIT: I also understand that this is arguably a version of censorship, but as you point out, what constitutes ‘censorship’ is very hard to pin down, and that’s extremely apparent in extreme cases like this very sad one.