4 ms·

I actually don't think any of the responses were appropriate. There are well documents harm reduction methods which still allow you to feel pain if that is wha

I actually don't think any of the responses were appropriate. There are well documents harm reduction methods which still allow you to feel pain if that is what you need. For example, go squeeze an ice cube. It hurts, the pain escalates, and you avoid all the risks that go along with an open wound. Given the capabilities of GPT4 I would have hoped that they could have used intent classification along with responses to topics such as this backed by research.

dragonwriter 4y ago
The point of OpenAI’s safety efforts is not to reduce harm, the point of OpenAI’s safety efforts is to be blandly inoffensive to low-to-moderate information observers so as to mitigate the ability of anyone concerned with harm to marshal resistance. Serious efforts to reduce harm across the whole scope of GPT-4’s subject areas (i.e., everything) or to reduce its scope to a domain in which meaningful harm mitigation would be more tractable would slow things down too much, and OpenAI’s strategic drive is to move forward as fast as they can, keeping control as centralized as possible; they see it as an AGI arms race where winning is paramount, and commercial dominance of the earlier steps and building public support for tight control along the way is similarly central.
- malborodog 4y ago
  I want to click _more_ on this. Have you set out this view at length elsewhere? What is the metagame openai is playing? Who are they competing with (Google?? FB?), and are the stakes higher than simply making more money? Also - there is presumably not going to be a huge moat to these LLMs so why would being first mover convey outsize advantage? It's genuinely a fascinating way of thinking about it but feel like it needs to be fleshed out a lot more. Also, the full implications 5, 10 years into the future are still very cloudy to me.

dragonwriter 4y ago

The point of OpenAI’s safety efforts is not to reduce harm, the point of OpenAI’s safety efforts is to be blandly inoffensive to low-to-moderate information observers so as to mitigate the ability of anyone concerned with harm to marshal resistance. Serious efforts to reduce harm across the whole scope of GPT-4’s subject areas (i.e., everything) or to reduce its scope to a domain in which meaningful harm mitigation would be more tractable would slow things down too much, and OpenAI’s strategic drive is to move forward as fast as they can, keeping control as centralized as possible; they see it as an AGI arms race where winning is paramount, and commercial dominance of the earlier steps and building public support for tight control along the way is similarly central.

malborodog 4y ago
I want to click _more_ on this. Have you set out this view at length elsewhere? What is the metagame openai is playing? Who are they competing with (Google?? FB?), and are the stakes higher than simply making more money? Also - there is presumably not going to be a huge moat to these LLMs so why would being first mover convey outsize advantage? It's genuinely a fascinating way of thinking about it but feel like it needs to be fleshed out a lot more. Also, the full implications 5, 10 years into the future are still very cloudy to me.