4 ms·
On one hand the author seems to make fun of the notion that language models could be dangerous. But then a few sentences down the author complains: "The compa
by casebash 5y ago
On one hand the author seems to make fun of the notion that language models could be dangerous.
But then a few sentences down the author complains:
"The company “in charge” of protecting us from harmful AIs decided to let people use a system capable of engaging in disinformation and dangerous biases so they could pay for their costly maintenance."
So the author doesn't even present a coherent position.
- richk449 5y ago> So the author doesn't even present a coherent position. Maybe the author is a bot.
- Jasper_ 5y agoThe difference is that in the former scenario, the one OpenAI is supposedly protecting us from, the danger is that OpenAI is "too good", possible of doing damage by supposed nefarious actors: something generating hundreds of fake news articles a second which are all perfectly believable. The danger in the latter scenario is that OpenAI is garbage: when used to answer a perfectly innocuous request, it regurgitates disinformation and biased results. OpenAI can't gatekeep for "bad" people since it's actually good people interacting with dangerous AI. Like when asked to solve a simple math problem, it just gets the math straight up wrong, but people trust it. OpenAI wants us to believe its AI is so good it needs to be protected from "bad people" and built its safety protocols around that threat model, when it seems far more likely the latter is going to happen, and they haven't done a thing to protect us from that.