[dead]
Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
151–160 of 190 posts
Re: Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
#152It might be too far, but to me this piece seems aimed at increasing concerns among regulators about AI. OpenAI might view regulation as a means of ensuring their competitive edge as other big players enter the AI space.
Come on, when has Microsoft ever used the legal apparatus for market positioning or suppressing competition? Get real, dude.
Re: Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
#153Open AI is clearly overestimating the capabilities of its product. It is kind of funny actually.
It's always really embarrassing to come to these comment sections and see a lot of smart people talk about how they're not being fooled by the "marketing hype" of existential AI risk. Literally the top of the page is saying that they have no conclusive evidence that ChatGPT could actually increase the risk of biological weapons. They are undertaking this effort because the question of how to stop any AI from ending h…
Nah, they're just making shit up and talking their book. Intelligent people reject the entire premise. Stop being so naive.
Re: Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why they're so often so bad. I wonder if it's the Upton Sinclair effect; to paraphrase slightly: "It is difficult to get a person to understand something, when their hoped-for future wealth depends on not understanding it."
There are far far more dollars available to people that are on the "AI Safety" bandwagon than to those pushing back against it. The idea that the Upton Sinclair effect is the source of pushback against AI Safety zealotry, is getting things largely backwards AFAICT. Folks that are stressing the importance of studying the impact of concentrated corporate power, or the risk of profit-driven AI deployment, and so forth a…
> There are far far more dollars available to people that are on the "AI Safety" bandwagon than to those pushing back against it.
> The idea that the Upton Sinclair effect is the source of pushback against AI Safety zealotry, is getting things largely backwards AFAICT.
> Folks that are stressing the importance of studying the impact of concentrated corporate power, or the risk of profit-driven AI deployment, and so forth are receiving very little financial support.
IMO your comment doesn't substantively address michael_nielsen's comment, but I might be wrong. The following is how I understand your exchange with michael_nielsen.
The two of you are talking about three sets of people:
Let A be AI notkilleveryoneism people.
Let B be AI capabilities developers/supporters.
Let C be people concerned with regulatory capture and centralization by AI firms.
A and B are disjoint.
A and C have some overlap.
B and C have considerable overlap.
And then you are pointing out that people of C are getting less money to investigate AI centralization than people of A are getting to investigate/propagandize AI notkilleveryoneism.
So, your claim is probably true, but it doesn't rebut what michael_nielsen suggested.
And I believe it's also critical to keep in mind that the actual funding is like this:
capabilities development >>>>>>>>>> ai notkilleveryoneism > ai centralization investigation
Re: Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if you ignore LLMs specifically? I think that's the point that the GP was making. Do you believe it's mathematically impossible for any artificial machine to "reason"? Or just LLMs?
I'm guessing the answer will be soul or something of sorts. Not even based on the previous comments, even non-religious people seem to have this supernatural view of a soul.
[deleted]
Re: Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
#156My wife is doing her PhD in molecular neurobiology, and was amused by this - but also noted that the question is trivial and any undergrad with lab access would know how to do this. Watching her manage cell cultures it seems the difficulty is more around not having the cells die from every dust particle in the air being a microscopic pirate ship brimming with fungal spores set to pillage any plate of cells they land…
I was thinking this as well.
> Due to the sensitive nature of this model and of the biological threat creation use case, the research-only model that responds directly to biologically risky questions (without refusals) is made available to our vetted expert cohort only. We took several steps to ensure security, including in-person monitoring at a secure facility and a custom model access procedure, with access strictly limited to the period of the experiment. Additional considerations regarding information hazards and security protocols are detailed in the Appendix.
This is well past cringe. A lot of what the AI community puts out feels like they're LARPing scientists, similar to the valid question of whether Software Engineering is actually engineering.
Re: Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are far far more dollars available to people that are on the "AI Safety" bandwagon than to those pushing back against it. The idea that the Upton Sinclair effect is the source of pushback against AI Safety zealotry, is getting things largely backwards AFAICT. Folks that are stressing the importance of studying the impact of concentrated corporate power, or the risk of profit-driven AI deployment, and so forth a…
> There are far far more dollars available to people that are on the "AI Safety" bandwagon than to those pushing back against it. > The idea that the Upton Sinclair effect is the source of pushback against AI Safety zealotry, is getting things largely backwards AFAICT. > Folks that are stressing the importance of studying the impact of concentrated corporate power, or the risk of profit-driven AI deployment, and so f…
I mostly agree with this. Certainly the last line!
I've been reflecting on Jeremy's comments, though, and agree on many things with him. It's unfortunately hard to tease apart the hard corporate push for open source AI (most notably from Meta, but also many other companies) from more principled thinking about it, which he is doing. I agree with many of his conclusions, and disagree with some, but appreciate that he's thinking carefully, and that, of course, he may well be right, and I may be wrong.
Re: Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
#158Re: Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
... I'm not trying to be rude, but do you think maybe you have bought into the purposely exaggerated marketing?
That's not how people who actually build things do things. They don't buy into any marketing. They sign up for the service and play around with it and see what it can do.
Depends on the scale of the job. Sometimes you wake up and your employer is already paying for both google drive as well as one drive and drop box at the same time and IT is replacing the room av for the third time this year.
Re: Building an early warning system for LLM-aided biological threat creation
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do have to appreciate the Machiavellian cleverness of this approach to marketing.
Nah, a true Machiavellian would fool smart people too - this has the sophistication of jangling keys in front of an infant. I’m a bit embarrassed for them.
Hard to be embarrassed at the player when jingling keys in front of an infant is often literally the game.