I disagree. This is the "millions of monkeys writing shakespeare" situation, but applied to procedural randomness. Tuning AI models and shifting weights might a

I disagree. This is the "millions of monkeys writing shakespeare" situation, but applied to procedural randomness. Tuning AI models and shifting weights might augur out some form of truth eventually, but it's always inferior to informed judgement. It's not an underestimation of technical progress on my behalf; it's the application of risk-management in the real-world. AI is expressly not like a nuke, it's spinning the wheel on a randomizer of language the entire world has had access to for centuries, hoping to discover some self-evident truth that will distinguish itself from the garbage. The "theory" is non-dangerous. The apes aren't getting any closer to blowing up the world, as long as they're stuck on the typewriter. You have to prove to me that an exploit vector exists for a rogue text model. You have to pull up the "Trusting Trust" of AI (of which none exists). The fundamental theory of AI exploitation is "iunno man, reddit said it eats the world" and I don't find it scary at all.