> Let's face it, though: these models are not more dangerous than Wikipedia or the Internet. These models are not custodians of ancient knowledge on how to cook

> Let's face it, though: these models are not more dangerous than Wikipedia or the Internet. These models are not custodians of ancient knowledge on how to cook Meth. This information is public knowledge. I don't think this is the right frame of reference for the threat model. An organized group of moderately intelligent and dedicated people can certainly access public information to figure out how to produce methamphetamine. An AI might make it easy for a disorganized or insane person to procure the chemicals and follow simple instructions to make meth. But the threat here isn't meth, or the AI saying something impolite or racist. The danger is that it could provide simple effective instructions on how to shoot down a passenger airplane, or poison a town's water supply, or (the paradigmatic example) how to build a virus to kill all the humans. Organized groups of people that purposefully cause mass casualty events are rare, but history shows they can be effective. The danger is that unaligned/uncensored intelligent AI could be placing those capabilities into the hands of deranged homicidal individuals, and these are far more common. I don't know that gatekeeping or handicapping AI is the best long term solution. It may be that the best protection from AI in the hands of malevolent actors is to make AI available to everyone. I do think that AI is developing at such a pace that something truly dangerous is far closer than most people realize. It's something to take seriously.