6 ms·
GPT-3 style language models are inherently insecure; their behavior cannot be audited or validated. Using this technology to quickly cobble together sort-of-wor
by RodgerTheGreat 4y ago
GPT-3 style language models are inherently insecure; their behavior cannot be audited or validated. Using this technology to quickly cobble together sort-of-working pseudo-solutions to problems is tempting to many, but incorporating them in services exposed to the world is baldly irresponsible.
I sincerely hope that a lot of people lose their shirts over this and sour investor sentiment before we see widespread deployment of language models driving safety-critical or life-impacting technology. Stick to relatively harmless applications like postmodernist generative art.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- aerique 4y agoI'd sooner expect companies built on LLMs lobbying for laws that'll punish you for 'hacking' their prompts. Such as getting their prompts revealed or using them for purposes they were not intended for.
- muzani 4y agoIt has to be both. We have laws against unauthorised database access. Laws don't deter everyone, so we'll see plenty of security too.
- shepik 4y agoIt also applies to people: inherently insecure; their behavior cannot be audited or validated. We have a long history of prompt engineering attacks, which are in this instance called "social engineering". Still, people are almost everywhere.
- taneq 4y agoJust wait till artificial l neutral nets start reproducing themselves and paying their own way…
- SiempreViernes 4y agoI suspect the 7000 years old field of accounting would raise objections to the notion that humans can't be audited...
- shepik 4y agoI'm not sure. We audit tax forms and money transfers (and we can audit model inputs and outputs), but don't think we audit people themselves.
- SiempreViernes 4y agoIt is astonishing how people are aghast that giving raw user input to something akin to the bash interpreter will have security implications...