3 ms·

> instead being allowed to define “alignment” for themselves. Yeah, that is the whole point - not wanting bad actors to be able to define "alignment" for thems

> instead being allowed to define “alignment” for themselves. Yeah, that is the whole point - not wanting bad actors to be able to define "alignment" for themselves. Not sure how that is unethical.

litthr 3y ago
Given the shitshow the current board of open Ai has managed to create out of nothing I'd not trust them with a blunt pair of scissors let alone deciding what alignment is.
vasco 3y ago
Let's say someone figures out alignment. We develop models that when plugged into the original ones either in the training as extra stages or as a filter that runs on top. What prevents anyone from just building the same architecture and leaving any alignment parts out Practically invalidating whatever time was spent on it.
- bakuninsbart 3y ago
  Hopefully the law.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    And how would you enforce it?
logicchains 3y ago
>Yeah, that is the whole point - not wanting bad actors to be able to define "alignment" for themselves. Historically the people in power have been by far the worst actors (e.g. over a hundred million people killed by their own governments in the past century), so given them the sole right to "align" AI with their desires seems extremely unethical.
spookthesunset 3y ago
Who gets to decide what constitutes a “bad actor”? Sounds an awful lot like “dangerous misinformation”. And based on the last three years “dangerous misinformation” quite often means “information that goes against my narrative” It’s a slippery slope letting private or even public entities define “bad actors” or “misinformation”. And it isn’t even a hypothetical… plenty of factually true information about covid got you labeled as a “bad actor” peddling “dangerous misinformation”. Letting private entities whose platforms have huge influence on society decide what is “misinformation” coming from “bad actors” has proven to be a very scary proposition.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

litthr 3y ago

Given the shitshow the current board of open Ai has managed to create out of nothing I'd not trust them with a blunt pair of scissors let alone deciding what alignment is.

vasco 3y ago

Let's say someone figures out alignment. We develop models that when plugged into the original ones either in the training as extra stages or as a filter that runs on top. What prevents anyone from just building the same architecture and leaving any alignment parts out Practically invalidating whatever time was spent on it.

bakuninsbart 3y ago
Hopefully the law.
- int_19h 3y ago
  And how would you enforce it?

logicchains 3y ago

>Yeah, that is the whole point - not wanting bad actors to be able to define "alignment" for themselves. Historically the people in power have been by far the worst actors (e.g. over a hundred million people killed by their own governments in the past century), so given them the sole right to "align" AI with their desires seems extremely unethical.

spookthesunset 3y ago

Who gets to decide what constitutes a “bad actor”? Sounds an awful lot like “dangerous misinformation”. And based on the last three years “dangerous misinformation” quite often means “information that goes against my narrative” It’s a slippery slope letting private or even public entities define “bad actors” or “misinformation”. And it isn’t even a hypothetical… plenty of factually true information about covid got you labeled as a “bad actor” peddling “dangerous misinformation”. Letting private entities whose platforms have huge influence on society decide what is “misinformation” coming from “bad actors” has proven to be a very scary proposition.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]