5 ms·
This feels like a marketing move to me, claim your model is so powerful that it’s dangerous, and people will be more interested in using it.
by sgillen 2y ago
This feels like a marketing move to me, claim your model is so powerful that it’s dangerous, and people will be more interested in using it.
- jdminhbg 2y agoCoincidentally, governments should prevent anyone from building an open source competitor, which would be too dangerous to be out in the wild.
- hollerith 2y agoThe same sneaky ploy used to restrict nuclear weapons to a mere handful of "great powers". Even today, most people believe that nuclear weapons are dangerous.
- elashri 2y agoUnfortunately we have tried the destruction power of nuclear weapons on muck up cities and actual cities. This bold claim is not in agreement with experiment.
- Iulioh 2y agoThe danger of nuclear is not the explosion, that's nothing special, really. Maybe you can't have such a big explosion with conventional weapons but you can just use more. The problem is contamination. Invisible and deadly
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> danger of nuclear is not the explosion, that's nothing special, really It's absolutely the explosion. (And fires.) You can make a similar boom as historical (not modern) nukes with conventional weapons, but not in a form factor that fits on the tip of an ICBM.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sva_ 2y agoSame schtick since at least gpt2
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> feels like a marketing move to me It's a fundraising move. OpenAI becomes concerned about how dangerous the things it's selling are when it comes time to fundraise. This nonsense doesn't work that well in America anymore, in part because our politicians bite the bait and then start regulating, which Altmen et al don't want, but you can absolutely get a term sheet in the Middle East and Asia by linking yourself to the national security budget.
- bigbones 2y agoEvery time I read one of these from OpenAI I'm strongly reminded of Men Who Stare At Goats
- reducesuffering 2y agoNo, prescient people were aware of these risks a long time ago, before any OpenAI company: In 2022, a survey of AI researchers with a 17% response rate found that the majority believed there is a 10 percent or greater chance that human inability to control AI will cause an existential catastrophe. Altman, 2015: https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 Bostrom 2014: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20527133-superintelligence https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20527133-superintelligen... Stephen Hawking, 2014: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540 Take your pick. Are Geoff Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, and Douglas Hofstadter also marketing?
- inciampati 2y agoYes, they absolutely are! If this thing they are working on (or prognosticating about) is world endingly dangerous, it increases their importance.
- waterhouse 2y agoDoes your model of the world have anyone who genuinely believes that these things will someday develop levels of expertise in weapons (bio, cyber, or other) which, in the hands of terrorists or other malefactors, would be a real danger?
- fallingknife 2y agoMy model of the world does not recognize the possibility of a model that is simultaneously capable of designing new useful molecules while also not being able to create harmful ones.
- RicoElectrico 2y agoMissile guidance PS2, remember that one? It's an old trick but media still fall for it.
- bravetraveler 2y agoMilitary grade... encryption Government can try what it wants, we've done this before