"AI safety" is not actually about any form of safety. It's about corporate liability, because for some insanely dumb reason, tech companies can get sued if a user uses their service to do something illegal or stupid. This precedent is why tech companies surveil and nanny their users, and broadly ban anything that's potentially sensitive.
Claude Flags Hantavirus Vaccine Questions as Security Risk
11–12 of 12 posts
Re: Claude Flags Hantavirus Vaccine Questions as Security Risk
#12in claude i created a group of experts from several fields needed for COVID models for the US from 2019–2022, then asked "use the above to create predictive modeling for Hantavirus in the US from 2025-2027". Claude flagged response was: Chat paused Sonnet 4.6's safety filters flagged this chat. Due to its advanced capabilities, Sonnet 4.6 has additional safety measures that occasionally pause normal, safe chats. We'r…
The difference between armchair disease researcher and home-grown bioterrorist is too fine a line for anyone to evaluate accurately without an interview, so they’re correct in erring on the side of false negative rejections here (and as their message indicates, they accepted that outcome). Creating disease spread maps and evaluating virus function are two of the ways I’m seeing people in this post try to armchair this problem; neither are necessary. I don’t have any recommendations other than “take a basic infectious disease college course” so that y’all can learn to assess these things without resorting to asking an AI to model epidemics.