Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tf is the risk of generating erotica?
Deepfakes?
Honestly I was under the impression erotica is text based only. I guess not.
Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
161–170 of 508 posts
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> They let the safety team run the show and the resulting product was universally hated for it. Yes though Google is extra cautious because the “Google” brand is worth over $100B a year in revenue, and they want to make sure nothing ever tarnishes their reputation. So it’s not clear to me that safety always means what it means for Gemini. OpenAI would still have a lot of flexibility to do safety their own way.
> they want to make sure nothing ever tarnishes their reputation
In the spirit of where you want the conversation to go, I see the point you want to make.
However, they are willing to tarnish their reputation just as long as it's not ruined. Their reputation on support is rubbish. Their reputation on YouTube's automated violation handling is rubbish. Their reputation on releasing a pet project long enough to just start to gain traction and then kill it is rubbish. Their reputation on allowing their search to be gamed by SEO and ad purchasers at the expense of smaller sites is rubbish.
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I can see how the switch to closed source could be annoying to some, but it definitely doesn’t rise to the level of “unethical” IMO. In fact, the explanation of the rationale for the decision seems perfectly reasonable. WRT to Altman’s ousting and return, I still haven’t seen any evidence of compromised ethics on his part. It looked a lot more like clumsy doomers botching a coup. A supermajority of OpenAIs employees, people who I’d venture to guess have a far better handle on Altmans ethics than you or I, insisted on his reinstatement. That’s enough of a refutation on that point for me. What else?
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Text continuation poses "the greatest of dangers"?
Hoo boy... if you think chatbots are all this is... wait til you find out what's next.
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at compute scaling and model improvement on that compute, we’re going to get there pretty fast. Both compute, architecture and cost matter, and those have been improving like crazy. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t expect GPT-4o to come out at half the price one year later, with real-time voice, image and text. There is zero sign of slowing, Nvidia keeps building beefier GPUs specialized in LLMs, the…
Even sam says they are 2 breakthroughs before AGI is possible. Who knows how difficult they are to make that leap. Humans are still highly capable comparing to LLMs
And let’s not forget that Sam Altman is the CEO of OpenAI. He clearly has a vested interest in creating hype around AI, AGI, etc. But when i point this out on Reddit, for some reason i get downvoted.
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#166Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#167Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 y…
We can't formally stumble into sentience because we don't have a definition of it let alone a test which can confirm or refute its presence.
People will think they "know it when they see it". The arguing will be fun.
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 y…
> None, and the court has already spoken on this. It's a pretty dead issue.
The question of rights would be legislative rather than judicial. More importantly, the discussion should actually be among the people first in anything resembling a democracy, the few in charge are meant to represent us not rule us.
> See PGE and its own death toll.
Unless I'm mistaken, PGE isn't an artificial intelligence or sentient.
> 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.
OpenAI's explicit goal is to create and release an AGI. A majority of experts in the industry I have either talked with personally or heard in long form interviews expect that we could be very close to AGI, on the order of a couple years up to maybe 15 or 20 years on the high end. Given how slowly any societal discussion related to rights of a population move, do you think we'll have plenty of time to decide this after an AGI is released in some spectacularly Silicon Valley product release party?
Re: Sam and Greg's response to OpenAI Safety researcher claims
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
ok elon
[flagged]
Here's a good excuse: https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-leak-200-million-user-em...