131–140 of 409 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
pretty sure this comes down to bad parenting and social media being relatively new on the human timeline - teething pains are to be expected
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…
Isn't it the same as a legal team, another point you touch upon ? I don't think we solved the need for a specialized team dealing with legality, feels hard to expect companies to solve it for ethics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You contradict yourself
You think open sourcing your models isn't ethical?
Open source models are already being used for all kinds of nefarious purposes. Any safety controls on a model are easily stripped off once its weights are public.
Usually I love open source software. Most of my career has been spent writing open source code. But this is powerful and dangerous technology. I don’t believe that nuclear weapons should be open source and available to all either.
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.
not sure it's fair to trivialize ai risks. for just one example, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hey, if we want alcohol to be made responsibly, everyone should have their own still, made from freely redistributed blueprints. Anyone who wants to can, in fact, find blueprints for making their own still. For example, https://moonshinestillplans.com/ contains plans for a variety of different types of stills and guidance on which type to build based on how you want to use it. And in fact I think it's good that thi…
it's very easy to build a still that appears to work but actually leaves you with a high-methanol end product. Is it? I've always seen concern about methanol in moonshine but I presume it came from intentional contamination from evil bootleggers. It's difficult to get a wash containing enough methanol to meaningfully concentrate in the first place if you're making whiskey or rum. Maybe with fruit wine and hard cider…
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.
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.
not sure it's fair to trivialize ai risks. for just one example, the pen is mightier than the sword.
What are these teams accomplishing? Give me a concrete example of a harm prevented. “Pen is mightier than the sword” is an aphorism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no obvious reason they couldn't just train one themselves, or merely steal existing weights given enough time.
That is precious time that can be used to work on alignment.
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…
So the structure matters. Ethicists who produce papers on why ethics matters and the like are kind of like security, compliance, and legal people at your company who can only say no to your feature.
But Google’s Project Zero team is a capable team and produces output that actually help Google and everyone. In a particularly moribund organization, they really stand out.
I think the model is sound. If your safety, security, compliance, and legal teams believe that the only acceptable risk is from a mud ball buried in the ground then you don’t have any of those functions because that’s doable by an EA with an autoresponder. What this effective team does is minimize your risks on this front while allowing you to build your objective.