Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 508 posts

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#151

Post by bboygravity »

tummler wrote: post #85
corry wrote: post #62

In any sufficiently large tech company, the "risk mitigation" leadership (legal, procurement, IT, etc) have to operate in a kind of Overton window that balance the risks they are hired to protect the corp from vs. the need or desire of the senior leadership to play fast and loose when they want or feel they need to. Either the risk-mitigator 'falls in line' after repeatedly seeing their increasingly strident exhortat…

The difference here is that these aren't standard-issue HR/legal issues. The technology they're working on poses the gravest of dangers. This is uncharted territory, not just for the tech sector, but period. Whether the recent public back-and-forth is just internal drama/politics spilling out, or there really is a lack of gravitas around the handling of these issues within the company-- neither is good. Others have s…

OpenAI is one of the few companies that is so messed up that even the name itself is a flat out lie. From there it's censorship, lies and manipulation all the way down from leadership to product. There's no ignoring that. There's no way any organization like that can succeed IMO.

Just another technology development that Musk will eventually beat everyone else at IMO.

Grok 1.5 is getting pretty good and the fact that it's the least censored IMO is obviously going to make it win from all the others that just can't help themselves from pleasing a hand full of people with money and power.

TLDR: black Hitler.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#154

Post by zer00eyz »

_heimdall wrote: post #119
Analemma_ wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually talked to any AI safety people? They despise the DEI-flavored AI ethics "make sure it generates enough black people" stuff just as much as you do, and I think you're lumping the two of them together just based on your own dislike, without checking whether that's actually reflective of the reality on the ground.

I didn't actually mean to refer to the DEI-flavored AI ethics. That was totally unintentional on my part, I should have caught that. I raised both because I see them going down very similar paths. DEI conceptually is a really important idea and could lead to really important change or course correction. As implemented today though, it seems to most often be implemented as a much more surface level program that sure f…

> Thinking bigger for a minute, what rights would a real AI have?

None, and the court has already spoken on this. It's a pretty dead issue.

> Can it be turned off?

Yes it's a machine. Save state, power down.

> Can it commit crimes or be punished?

See PGE and its own death toll.

> Does it have rights?

No, and we aren't even on a path where these questions are relevant. It's all an exercise in mental mastrubation. If you think that were going to accidentally stumble into sentience never mind sapenenc I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#155

Post by pdonis »

next_xibalba wrote: post #137
pdonis wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If few or none, does that not indicate that OpenAI has done a good job at safety? No. It only indicates that OpenAI is less technically capable than it claims. To judge OpenAI's competence at safety, you have to look at the ethics of their behavior, since building the right ethics into an AI before it gets powerful enough to do serious harm to humans is the essence of AI safety. And the ethics of OpenAI's behavior,…

Ok, what actions have they taken that are unethical?

Um, closing access to their model code when "Open" is right there in their name and was the original promise they made?

Plenty of other posts in this discussion give other examples.

That's without even getting into all that happened with Altman leaving and then coming back, which has already been discussed to death in other HN threads.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#156

Post by [deleted] »

Aurornis wrote: post #133
corry wrote: post #62

In any sufficiently large tech company, the "risk mitigation" leadership (legal, procurement, IT, etc) have to operate in a kind of Overton window that balance the risks they are hired to protect the corp from vs. the need or desire of the senior leadership to play fast and loose when they want or feel they need to. Either the risk-mitigator 'falls in line' after repeatedly seeing their increasingly strident exhortat…

> In any sufficiently large tech company, the "risk mitigation" leadership (legal, procurement, IT, etc) have to operate in a kind of Overton window that balance the risks they are hired to protect the corp from vs. the need or desire of the senior leadership to play fast and loose when they want or feel they need to. We have recently seen what happens when companies err heavily on the side of risk mitigation for LLM…

[deleted]

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#157

Post by xyzzy4747 »

chronic030511 wrote: post #82
cqqxo4zV46cp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re literally in the comments for one of these statements though. Did you just come here aim an outsized lecture at whoever was unlucky enough to appear on your screen first? Either OP has a point, or you’re just saying that you parachuted here to say your piece without looking beyond the submission title. In either case, behaviour that makes HN worse.

OpenAI is dead and I feel bad for employees with equity PPU locked up.

If OpenAI is dead, which startups do you consider alive?

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#158

Post by next_xibalba »

nvy wrote: post #138
next_xibalba wrote: post #125

What harms, in the real world, have GPTs produced? If few or none, does that not indicate that OpenAI has done a good job at safety? If so, should that not buy the company some credibility looking forward? It’s fashionable, for reasons I am unaware, to hate on Sam Altman and OpenAI. Seems to be mostly the doomer crowd and it’s Blake Lemoine types (boy do his claims look ridiculous only 2 years on). To my thinking the…

>It’s fashionable, for reasons I am unaware, to hate on Sam Altman and OpenAI Perhaps because he's a slimy used-car salesman who got rich doing things that are illegal for you and me (ripping off copyrighted works en masse) and he pulled a bait and switch as far as for-/non-profit is concerned. He's everything wrong with Silicon Valley/Venture Capital/faux meritocratic culture rolled into one.

Altman was rich before OpenAI, so that claim doesn’t hold much water. It is a legitimate and open question as to what fair use constitutes when it comes to training models on copyrighted content. It will definitely be settled in the courts, if not by legislatures in the coming years. Apart from ad hominem attacks and matters about which there are legitimate differences of opinion, I return to my original question: what significant harms have OpenAIs products yielded? It is obvious that a raw LLM of GPT-4s power could do some harm in the wrong hands. Therefore, if you can’t point to real harms, it is reasonable to conclude, at the very least, that Altman/OpenAI might not be the wrong hands.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#159

Post by dylan604 »

Aurornis wrote: post #133
corry wrote: post #62

In any sufficiently large tech company, the "risk mitigation" leadership (legal, procurement, IT, etc) have to operate in a kind of Overton window that balance the risks they are hired to protect the corp from vs. the need or desire of the senior leadership to play fast and loose when they want or feel they need to. Either the risk-mitigator 'falls in line' after repeatedly seeing their increasingly strident exhortat…

> In any sufficiently large tech company, the "risk mitigation" leadership (legal, procurement, IT, etc) have to operate in a kind of Overton window that balance the risks they are hired to protect the corp from vs. the need or desire of the senior leadership to play fast and loose when they want or feel they need to. We have recently seen what happens when companies err heavily on the side of risk mitigation for LLM…

With all things, it is not necessarily unhelpful to turn the knobs to the max in both directions to see if the dent position in the middle is the best default or not. So Google's attempt at max sanitizing wasn't good which is kind of expected, but good to have the test results to prove. Going opposite to no safety put in place can also have an assumed outcome. That one however will be much more likely to have negative consequences if truly allowed to run.

Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims

#160

Post by arathis »

I don't believe them. There's no trust here. They need to earn it. I don't know how, but their continued call for safety around the very thing they're creating doesn't come off as playing safe, but creating cover for themselves when inevitably they break shit.

I do not trust them.

Post reply on HN