7 ms·
From what I've seen, Claude Sonnet 3.5 is decidedly less "safe" than GPT-4o, by the relatively new politicized understanding of "safety". Anthropic takes safet
by caeril 2y ago
From what I've seen, Claude Sonnet 3.5 is decidedly less "safe" than GPT-4o, by the relatively new politicized understanding of "safety".
Anthropic takes safety to mean "let's not teach people how to build thermite bombs, engineer grey goo nanobots, or genome-targeted viruses", which is the traditional futurist concern with AI safety.
OpenAI and Google safety teams are far more concerned with revising history, protecting egos, and coddling the precious feelings of their users. As long as no fee-fees are hurt, it's full speed ahead to paperclip maximization.
- walleeee 2y agoNot to dispute your particular comment, which I think is right, but it's worth pointing out we're full steam ahead on paperclips regardless of any AI company. This has been true for some 300 years, longer depending how flexible we are with definitions and where we locate inflection points
- derektank 2y agoThis has not been my experience. Twice in the last week I've had Claude refuse to answer questions about a specific racial separatist group (nothing about their ideology, just their name and facts about their membership) and questions about unconventional ways to assess job candidates. Both times I turned to ChatGPT and it gave me an answer immediately