4 ms·

> You're joining dots from LLM's producing text output that humans read to them being linked to autonomously taking actions by themselves. That's a huge leap.

> You're joining dots from LLM's producing text output that humans read to them being linked to autonomously taking actions by themselves. That's a huge leap. No, it's not. It used to be a huge leap until OpenAI started advertising plugin support and Plantr started advertising using it to interpret drone footage. "We won't wire it to anything important" was a good argument, but that ship is rapidly sailing now.

zmmmmm 4y ago
just because it's easy to do doesn't mean it isn't a huge logical leap. What concerns me most is the outsourcing of liability going on. Which is already what OpenAI is largely doing - outsourcing Microsoft's liability for releasing this tech into the wild to a company that can afford to write off the legal risk. Now OpenAI is outsourcing the legal risk for what ChatGPT does to plugin developers. So the first chatbot that convinces someone to mass murder their class mates will at worst be sucking compensation out of some indie developer with no assets instead of OpenAI, let alone Microsoft. If we get the model for liability right, all these problems solve themselves. Yes it will shut down certain exploitations of technology but it won't shut down the more general harmless use which is important for us to engage in to understand and improve the tech.
- danShumway 4y ago
  I don't mean it's easy to do, I mean they're doing it. Google is literally announcing a cloud service that uses an LLM to analyze if code snippets are safe. This is an obviously bad idea and it's not theoretical, it already exists. I don't necessarily disagree that it was a leap, but it's a leap we've taken now.
  - zmmmmm 4y ago
    I think I mostly am agreeing with you but I see it through a liability lens. When Google's cloud service to analyze code snippets screws up, nothing in the ToU should alleviate Google from the responsibility they should rightly bear if they ship a system with known and understood flaws that are not clearly portrayed to the user (and I don't mean buried in the middle of a paragraph in page 36 of the ToU). If forcing Google to accept liability kills the service dead then good - it's probably the right thing until they can reach an acceptable level of safety that they are willing to accept the resultant risk.

zmmmmm 4y ago

just because it's easy to do doesn't mean it isn't a huge logical leap. What concerns me most is the outsourcing of liability going on. Which is already what OpenAI is largely doing - outsourcing Microsoft's liability for releasing this tech into the wild to a company that can afford to write off the legal risk. Now OpenAI is outsourcing the legal risk for what ChatGPT does to plugin developers. So the first chatbot that convinces someone to mass murder their class mates will at worst be sucking compensation out of some indie developer with no assets instead of OpenAI, let alone Microsoft. If we get the model for liability right, all these problems solve themselves. Yes it will shut down certain exploitations of technology but it won't shut down the more general harmless use which is important for us to engage in to understand and improve the tech.

danShumway 4y ago
I don't mean it's easy to do, I mean they're doing it. Google is literally announcing a cloud service that uses an LLM to analyze if code snippets are safe. This is an obviously bad idea and it's not theoretical, it already exists. I don't necessarily disagree that it was a leap, but it's a leap we've taken now.
- zmmmmm 4y ago
  I think I mostly am agreeing with you but I see it through a liability lens. When Google's cloud service to analyze code snippets screws up, nothing in the ToU should alleviate Google from the responsibility they should rightly bear if they ship a system with known and understood flaws that are not clearly portrayed to the user (and I don't mean buried in the middle of a paragraph in page 36 of the ToU). If forcing Google to accept liability kills the service dead then good - it's probably the right thing until they can reach an acceptable level of safety that they are willing to accept the resultant risk.