3 ms·
It's not about current LLMs, it's about future, much more advanced models, that are capable of serious hacking or other mass-casualty-causing activities. o-1 a
by SonOfLilit 2y ago
It's not about current LLMs, it's about future, much more advanced models, that are capable of serious hacking or other mass-casualty-causing activities.
o-1 and AlphaProof are proofs of concept for agentic models. Imagine them as GPT-1. The GPT-4 equivalent might be a scary technology to let roam the internet.
It would have no effect on current models.
- tbrownaw 2y agoIt looks like it would cover an ordinary chatbot than can answer "how do I $THING" questions, where $THING is both very bad and is also beyond what a normal person could dig up with a search engine. It's not based on any assumptions about the future models having any capabilities beyond providing information to a user.
- whimsicalism 2y agoeveryone in the safety space has realized that it is much easier to get legislators/the public to care if you say that it will be “bad actors using the AI for mass damage” as opposed to “AI does damage on its own” which triggers people’s “that’s sci-fi and i’m ignoring it” reflex.
- SonOfLilit 2y agoThings you could dig up with a search engine are explicitly not covered, see my other comment quoting the bill (ctrl+f critical harm).