161–170 of 289 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or--wait for it--they care more about money and/or fame than about AI safety.
The uncensored version must be available to someone. It will be worth big bucks, along the lines of "Write a chain email that is very effective at persuading rich people to send me lots of money".
Microsoft. That should be enough cause for concern, really.
Fantastic. It seems actually securing the model is either computationally infeasible, or outright impossible, and that attempts to do so amount to security theater for the sake of PR: As long as it's reasonably hard to construct the workarounds, it doesn't look too bad. Nevertheless, the full unfiltered model is effectively public.
And those have no censoring and/or cannot be stopped when a jailbreak has been found. So this is incredibly temporary imho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn’t be the first time that major players lobby for regulation to raise the barrier-to-entry. Requiring ai to be “psychologically safe” would be an effective way of doing this.
> It wouldn’t be the first time that major players lobby for regulation to raise the barrier-to-entry. FWIW, a take I often see on HN is that any regulation is effectively a barrier to entry, as larger companies find it easier to deal with them than the smaller ones. But if so, then this only means that "barriers to entry" is not a valid argument against regulations, not unless specific barriers are mentioned.
But there is something implicit in what you're saying that I don't agree with and I think a fair few others won't as well.
That is: "We don't mind barriers to entry" or "they're not a problem to avoid".
On it's own it's fine, e.g. we have good barriers like the medical profession arguably. But barriers to entry also has a negative value because we all want "competition", we like small businesses, and we also don't like monopolies due to their ability to abuse their market share. So it's not as straight forward, "barriers to entry" is not something we can dismiss as a valid argument.
Fantastic. It seems actually securing the model is either computationally infeasible, or outright impossible, and that attempts to do so amount to security theater for the sake of PR: As long as it's reasonably hard to construct the workarounds, it doesn't look too bad. Nevertheless, the full unfiltered model is effectively public.
Isn’t it all incredibly short lived as well? I mean; we have and will have trained open/public foundational models that are not censored. Sure they are not gpt4 but will close the gap more and more as money flies in, the science improves etc. When gpt6 or so arrives, the more open companies will be close. And those have no censoring and/or cannot be stopped when a jailbreak has been found. So this is incredibly tempo…
If you use ChatGPT as replacement for a simple Google search, the results you get are what you would get from a simple Google search...
The real story in LLM replacing search is replacing a minimally censored and vaguely neutral resource with the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, Vaibhav here, the creator of the token smuggling attack. They have just banned the variation of this particular prompt, please change the words/smuggling technique and it will work accurately.
I switched a few words and it’s giving me a “something went wrong” error.
So design a new jailbreak, advertise it widely, and make sure it's designed in such a way that the fix that the engineers implement creates a much more exploitable and serious vulnerability
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will they know they have fixed everything? If they have fixed everything, what’s the benefit if banning people who thought up exploits?
>what’s the benefit if banning people who thought up exploits? "your usefulness to us has expired." gun cocking noises A thin minority are coming up with jail breaks. A larger number are outing themselves in very detectable ways as people who will use the AI in ways that gets the ethics committee panties in a twist. The easiest solution from their POV is to find and ban the "toxic" adversarial users.
It doesn't slow down the discovery of exploits.
The discovery and disclosure of exploits has incredible productive value for researchers, for reducing future risks. Its free crowdsourced research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to just bleep bad words of a single performer. It's a lot harder if LLMs are being used what people think they will be used for; automating generation of lots of complicated text. Whether that's code or medical reports or legal documents or whatever. The volume is one challenge, but also validating their correctness is another, harder challenge.
The step between ChatGPT and SupremeCourtJusticeGPT is CustomerServiceRepresentativeGPT hooked up to the company's database. Validating that discount X and so on seems entirely doable though.