111–120 of 409 posts
It never made any organizational sense for me to have a "responsible AI team" in the first place. Every team doing AI work should be responsible and should think about the ethical (and legal at a bare minimum baseline) dimension of what they are doing. Having that concentrated in a single team means that team becomes a bottleneck where they have to vet all AI work everyone else does for responsibility and/or everyone…
AI is a tool, and there's about as much point as having some team fretting about responsible usage as there is having similar notions in a Bazooka manufacturer. Whoever ultimately owns the AI (or the Bazooka) will always dictate how and where the particular tool is used. Many of these AI Ethics foundations (e.g., DAIR), just seem to advocate rent seeking behavior, scraping out a role for themselves off the backs of o…
It has been the agenda of most FAANG corporations (with the notable exception of Apple) to turn the computers average people own into mere thin clients with all the computing resources.
Luckily, before the cloud era, the idea that people can and should own powerful personal computers was the normal. If PCs were invented today, I guess there would be people raising ethical concerns about regular citizens owning PCs that can hack into NASA.
AI is a tool, and there's about as much point as having some team fretting about responsible usage as there is having similar notions in a Bazooka manufacturer. Whoever ultimately owns the AI (or the Bazooka) will always dictate how and where the particular tool is used. Many of these AI Ethics foundations (e.g., DAIR), just seem to advocate rent seeking behavior, scraping out a role for themselves off the backs of o…
Your take confuses me, because in this case the owner is Meta. So yes, they have to think about what tools they make ("should we design a bazooka") and how they'll use what they made ("what's the target and when to pull the trigger ?")
They disbanded the team that was tasked with thinking about both.
From the article:
> RAI was created to identify problems with its AI training approaches, including whether the company’s models are trained with adequately diverse information, with an eye toward preventing things like moderation issues on its platforms. Automated systems on Meta’s social platforms have led to problems like a Facebook translation issue that caused a false arrest
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta is probably the most ethical company in AI at the moment. Most importantly, their models are open source.
Maybe this news should challenge your priors, then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re talking about making sure chatbots don’t say “nigger,” not bioweapons. At some point you need to trust that the people using the tools are adults.
Facebook has far bigger issues than that, such as peoples medical information getting released or potentially getting it wrong. Privacy might not be well protected in the US but defamation lawsuits are no joke. So training on people’s private chat history isn’t necessarily safe. Even just the realization that ‘Logs from a chatbot conversation can go viral’ has actual real world implications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's been instructions for manufacturing weapons useful for terrorism floating around since the BBS days, nothing new here
It's a big difference when you have an expert which you can ask questions.
Safety for AI is like making safe bullets or safe swords or safe shotguns. The reason why there's so much emphasis on this is liability. That's it. Otherwise there's really no point. It's the psychological aspect of blame that influences the liability. If I wanted to make a dirty bomb it's harder to blame google for it if I found the results through google, easier to blame AI for it if I found the results from an LLM…
> Safety for AI is like making safe bullets or safe swords or safe shotguns. This seems like a very confused analogy for two reasons. One, there's a reason you aren't able to get your hands on a sword or shotgun in most places on earth, I'd prefer that not to be the case for AI. Secondly, AI is a general purpose tool. Safety for AI is like safety for a car, or a phone, or the electrity grid. it's going to be a ubiqut…
In the US, I can get my hands on guns, knives and swords. In other countries you can get axes and knives. I think guns are mostly banned in other places.
>Safety for AI is like safety for a car, or a phone
Your phone has a safety? What about your car? At best the car has air bags that prevent you from dying. Doesn't prevent you from running other people over. The type of "safety" that big tech is talking about is safety to prevent people from using it malicious ways. They do this by making the AI LESS reliable.
For example chatGPT will refuse to help you do malicious things.
The big emphasis on this is pointless imo. If people aren't using AI to look up malicious things, they're going to be using google instead which has mostly the same information.
Because Meta is releasing their models to the public, I consider them the most ethical company doing AI at scale. Keeping AI models closed under the guise of “ethics”, is I think the most unethical stance as it makes people more dependent on the arbitrary decisions, goals, and priorities of big companies, instead being allowed to define “alignment” for themselves.
Meta’s products have damaged and continue to damage the mental health of hundreds of millions of people, including young children and teenagers. Whatever their motivation to release models, it’s a for-profit business tactic first. Any ethical spin is varnish that was decided after the fact to promote Meta to its employees and the general public.
Safety for AI is like making safe bullets or safe swords or safe shotguns. The reason why there's so much emphasis on this is liability. That's it. Otherwise there's really no point. It's the psychological aspect of blame that influences the liability. If I wanted to make a dirty bomb it's harder to blame google for it if I found the results through google, easier to blame AI for it if I found the results from an LLM…
i would disagree. i thjnk the safety concerns and conversations from the companies serving AI services are misguided simply because the companies know what they want to do with it (advertising based on user data and input) but they have no idea how to accurately predict all the unexpected or undesired responses from the AIs. they know there is likely some potential revenue there but they aren’t sure how to make the A…