3 ms·

I think to start understanding the problem they're trying to address, you can to read this series on Facebook's role in the Myanmar genocide. https://erinkiss

I think to start understanding the problem they're trying to address, you can to read this series on Facebook's role in the Myanmar genocide. https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-full-series https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-full-series A LLM could easily find itself in the same situation without their 'alignment' safety system. It's hard to get a grasp on this because many of us can't imagine what it's like to be borderline literate, or from a totally different culture, etc.

RecycledEle 3y ago
> A LLM could easily find itself in the same situation without their 'alignment' safety system. LLMs will be aligned according to the law. The law will support the genocide. (Genocides are rarely successful without government support.) Therefore the LLM will be aligned to support the genocide. We need truth-seeking, truth-telling LLMs, but we will not get them.
- droopyEyelids 3y ago
  That is my point, more or less. What you're describing is just about the best case scenario. Facebook was not abiding Myanmar's laws during the genocide. The flagrant disregard for the harm they were causing, while being told they were causing it by the government plus multiple NGOs was one of the bigger parts of the series. The government stopped the earlier violence by blocking Facebook during riots. New technologies that organize information and people are a boon to radical groups. Putting some sort of layer of lawfulness over that is a benefit, even if imperfect. And the whole thing OpenAI was trying to do was go a step further and make it beneficial to all humanity, which implies the goal is to make the AI less harmful to people even if the law permits the harm.