2 ms·
It doesn't sound like they "failed" any actual safety test, but rather that they rushed their safety tests, thereby "failing" (in the eyes of many people) to co
by benjismith 2y ago
It doesn't sound like they "failed" any actual safety test, but rather that they rushed their safety tests, thereby "failing" (in the eyes of many people) to conduct sufficiently rigorous tests.
Now that the 4o model have been out in the wild for 2 months, have there been any claims of serious safety failures? The article doesn't seem to imply any such thing.
- throwaway48476 2y ago'Safety' as defined by AI 'ethicists' has practically nothing at all to do with safety as imagined by the average person.
- XorNot 2y agoAI ethicists have been thoroughly underwhelming in delivering cogent arguments that sound like anything more then simply insisting on themselves. Meanwhile in the real world, regular politicians have reacted surprisingly quick to updating laws for new relevant loop holes: i.e. non-consented deep fake porn generation.
- pyuser583 2y agoAI ethicists seem more interested in promoting hype, than seriously studying how AI is used in the real world.
- dingosity 2y agolack of proof is not proof of lack.