4 ms·
> I really think the “dangers” of LLMs are overblown, in the sense of them outputting dangerous responses to questions. I thought the same until I read the goo
by Quarrelsome 2y ago
> I really think the “dangers” of LLMs are overblown, in the sense of them outputting dangerous responses to questions.
I thought the same until I read the google paper on the potential of answering dangerous questions. For example; consider an idiot seeking to do a lot of harm. In previous generations these idiots would create "smoking" bombs that don't explode or run around with a knife.
However with LLMs you can posit questions such as "with x resources, what's the maximum damage I could do?" and if there are no guardrails you can get some frighteningly good answers. This allows crazy to become crazy and effective, which is scary.
- southernplaces7 2y agoReally? There are these things called books, that people could use for all kinds of good or bad purposes, and these other things called search engines, which often let people easily find the content of said books (and other sources of information) which let you answer supposedly "dangerous" questions like your example with pretty minor effort. Should we all really be subject to some bland culture of corporate-controlled inoffensiveness and arbitrary "danger" taboos because of hypothetical, usually invented fears about so-called harmful information. This is fear-mongering of the most idiotic kind, now normalized by blatantly childish (if you're an ignorant politician or media source) or self-serving (if you're one of the major corporate players) claims about AI safety.
- theoreticalmal 2y agoLack of knowledge or lack of access to knowledge typically isn’t the limiting factor to bad people wanting to do bad things.