4 ms·
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the quoted statement does not seem entirely false at all. It is reductionist, but it highlights the fact tha
by enlyth 3y ago
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that the quoted statement does not seem entirely false at all. It is reductionist, but it highlights the fact that the models are indeed just generating numbers confined to a GPU, and don't have inherent agency. Some human has to wire up the model to the internet and enable it to interact with the world by whatever mechanism, and even then it's limited to the digital world, unless there's an API to stab someone or derail a train.
We should focus more on the making infrastructure safe from abuse and not how to cripple AI models for them to not realize how to do harm. More like 'How to ensure humans don't drop atomic bombs on each other' rather than 'How to make atomic bombs safer to drop on people'.
- mistermann 3y ago> and even then it's limited to the digital world, unless there's an API to stab someone or derail a train. Fly some airplanes into some skyscrapers, etc.
- c_crank 3y agoLitigation has been enough to put actual standards on aviation software. There just need to be one or two bad industrial accidents to make air gapping a standard practice elsewhere.
- mistermann 3y agoWould these measures have been adequate to prevent the 911 attacks though?
- pixl97 3y ago>We should focus more on the making infrastructure safe from abuse Humans are too fucking lazy to actually accomplish this. We hook more and more internet connected systems to things with a digitally controlled motor every day with things like "#disable in production, set for testing, disabling 2FA to..." that then get pushed to the customer.