5 ms·

I asked a previous version of GPT to write a function "fire_employee". It returned "return age >= 50". You don't need much convincing, just saying.

delusional 4y ago
When people prompt these AIs they tend to steer them towards what they want to see. A concerned researcher prompts it towards concerning content. A starry eyed one will avoid anything close to problematic. The interesting, and actually problematic section lies in the middle, much like you describe here. What would the AI do when asked to defend Alex Jones and his lies against the parents of the children dead at sandy hook? The real terror of AI is what it allows humans to do to each other, not what it will do by itself.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  After playing around with ChatGPT I think most of these "jailbraiking" posts are funny but miss the point. The point isn't that you can't make ChatGPT generate a play where Hitler and Stalin reminiscence about how to best commit genocide. The point is that ChatGPT needs to be very specifically instigated to do that. By itself ChatGPT has a very strong bias towards positive and productive responses and will not give mean/evil/unproductive answers to anything resembling a normal prompt - and that's the achievement here.
- zdenham 4y ago
  What a malicious human assisted by AI could do is pretty crazy too. We are giving every Joe Shmo access to super intelligence.
  - delusional 4y ago
    It's it a little classist to concern yourself with "Joe Shmo"? What it is that Joe is going to do that's any worse for him than what Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Paul Bulcke (Chairman of Nestle), or Nils Andersen (Chairman of Unilever) isn't already doing? How is an actual AI (not what we see today, but actual AI) more scary than the headless and amoral (not immoral, but amoral) organizations we have built today?
    - zdenham 4y ago
      Was not intending to sound classist. Joe Shmo can be anyone Elon included. For me it’s a question of whether the technology is potentially dangerous. If it is, then having it in more peoples hands increases the probability of harm.

delusional 4y ago

When people prompt these AIs they tend to steer them towards what they want to see. A concerned researcher prompts it towards concerning content. A starry eyed one will avoid anything close to problematic. The interesting, and actually problematic section lies in the middle, much like you describe here. What would the AI do when asked to defend Alex Jones and his lies against the parents of the children dead at sandy hook? The real terror of AI is what it allows humans to do to each other, not what it will do by itself.

formerly_proven 4y ago
After playing around with ChatGPT I think most of these "jailbraiking" posts are funny but miss the point. The point isn't that you can't make ChatGPT generate a play where Hitler and Stalin reminiscence about how to best commit genocide. The point is that ChatGPT needs to be very specifically instigated to do that. By itself ChatGPT has a very strong bias towards positive and productive responses and will not give mean/evil/unproductive answers to anything resembling a normal prompt - and that's the achievement here.
zdenham 4y ago
What a malicious human assisted by AI could do is pretty crazy too. We are giving every Joe Shmo access to super intelligence.
- delusional 4y ago
  It's it a little classist to concern yourself with "Joe Shmo"? What it is that Joe is going to do that's any worse for him than what Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Paul Bulcke (Chairman of Nestle), or Nils Andersen (Chairman of Unilever) isn't already doing? How is an actual AI (not what we see today, but actual AI) more scary than the headless and amoral (not immoral, but amoral) organizations we have built today?
  - zdenham 4y ago
    Was not intending to sound classist. Joe Shmo can be anyone Elon included. For me it’s a question of whether the technology is potentially dangerous. If it is, then having it in more peoples hands increases the probability of harm.