6 ms·
I don't agree with that reading. As long as my custom chemical weapon instructions are not publicly available otherwise, then it is surely more difficult to bui
by Imnimo 2y ago
I don't agree with that reading. As long as my custom chemical weapon instructions are not publicly available otherwise, then it is surely more difficult to build the weapon without access to the instructions.
The line about autonomous actions is only item C in the list of possible harms. It is separate from item A which covers chemical weapons and other similar acts.
- simonh 2y agoIf someone is so keen on doing something in a way that’s illegal that they go to all that trouble specially to get in trouble with the law, maybe that’s up to them.
- jph00 2y agoYou're missing the point. Liability here would also fall on the open source developer who created a general purpose model, which someone else then went on to fine-tune and prompt to do something harmful.
- Imnimo 2y agoIt's not the person who does the fine-tuning I'm worried about, it's the person who releases the base model who the law also makes liable. The point is that, because fine-tuning can trivially induce behavior that satisfies the standard for "hazardous capability" in any model, the law effectively makes it illegal to release any covered model.