5 ms·
You don't think that if the hammer company had a way (that cost them almost nothing) to make sure that the hammer its never used to attack human beings they wou
by mattigames 3y ago
You don't think that if the hammer company had a way (that cost them almost nothing) to make sure that the hammer its never used to attack human beings they wouldn't add such feature? I think many would, if anything by pressure of their local goverment or even the competition ("our hammers can't hurt your baby on accident like those other companies!") , but its impossible to add such feature to hammer; so maybe the lack of such feature its not by choice but a byproduct of its limitations.
- fragmede 3y ago> that cost them almost nothing Adding guardrails comes at significant expense, and not just financial, either.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoActually you kind of could. If you imagine making a normal hammer slightly more squishy, thats pretty similar to what they’re doing with llms. If the squishy hammer hits a person’s head, it’ll do less damage, but it’s also worse for nails.
- mattigames 3y agoThat's quite a big stretch, there are millions of operations where the LLM would do the exact same even if without those "guards", a lot the work for advertisement, emails, and a lot other use cases would be the exact same; so no, the comparison with a squachy hammer is off the mark.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y agoI remember the result from the sparks of agi paper that fine tuning for safety reduced performance broadly, if mildly, in seemingly unrelated areas
- mattigames 3y agoFair enough.