As a hobbyist AI-risky person, I would welcome this as an improvement on the status quo, with two worries: - it would create a false sense of safety that we "h

As a hobbyist AI-risky person, I would welcome this as an improvement on the status quo, with two worries: - it would create a false sense of safety that we "have the problem handled" - it would not, I believe, do much to slow down capability research or shift the ratio of capability research to safety research, as capability research is largely institutional and not dependent on public prompt access. Ie. analogously, our main problem is not "bioterrorism", it's "gain of function research" even if the outbreak happens in public. Given an unsafe bot, not giving the public access only delays the issue. (Though delays may be valuable!) Also, at the moment, "people interacting with GPT" is doing a lot (maybe an undue amount!) to spread awareness of AI risk. So I would welcome this as part of a comprehensive strategy, but it'd probably not be my main priority. Though if GPT-4 has another surprise on the level of chain-of-thought or in-window reinforcement learning waiting for us, a restriction like that may be the difference between "safe" and "iffy". Tradeoffs...