4 ms·
It is not impossible that we will prove LLMs are not possible to fully safeguard. If someone told you "i can guarantee Fred Smith here will never, ever say any
by greenthrow 4y ago
It is not impossible that we will prove LLMs are not possible to fully safeguard.
If someone told you "i can guarantee Fred Smith here will never, ever say anything inappropriate. He's not capable of it." (Fred being a regular old human.) You'd say "Well, no, you can't guarantee that. You may have given Fred all the best training in the world. You may have selected Fred from 10,000 other candidates as the least likely to ever say anything inappropriate. Fred may have strict instructions not to. But he still could."
It may be the same with LLMs.
- zamnos 4y agoAt the end of the day, just like "live" tv shows like the Superbowl halftime show aren't actually live - there's a delay so that a human can intervene and bleep out words for the censors, the safeguards will have to come from outside the LLM but be imposed on it.
- greenthrow 4y agoIt's easy to just bleep bad words of a single performer. It's a lot harder if LLMs are being used what people think they will be used for; automating generation of lots of complicated text. Whether that's code or medical reports or legal documents or whatever. The volume is one challenge, but also validating their correctness is another, harder challenge.
- zamnos 4y agoThe step between ChatGPT and SupremeCourtJusticeGPT is CustomerServiceRepresentativeGPT hooked up to the company's database. Validating that discount <= 20 and price > X and so on seems entirely doable though.
- cubancigar11 4y agoThis whole thing is, honestly, the most exciting thing that has happened in years and I mean years in the technology tech space. Right at the level of internet.
- taneq 4y agoI'd wager it is with any sufficiently intelligent system. Once it has agency (or can sufficiently well simulate something with agency, which is the same thing) you can't ever be 100% certain what it will do beforehand.