6 ms·
^I like email as an analogy if I send a death threat over gmail, I am responsible, not google if you use LLMs to make bombs or spam hate speech, you’re respon
by codyvoda 1y ago
^I like email as an analogy
if I send a death threat over gmail, I am responsible, not google
if you use LLMs to make bombs or spam hate speech, you’re responsible. it’s not a terribly hard concept
and yeah “AI safety” tends to be a joke in the industry
- Angostura 1y agoor alternatively, if I cook myself a cake and poison myself, i am responsible. If you sell me a cake and it poisons me, you are responsible.
- kennywinker 1y agoSo if you sell me a service that comes up with recipes for cakes, and one is poisonous? I made it. You sold me the tool that “wrote” the recipe. Who’s responsible?
- Sleaker 1y agoThe seller of the tool is responsible. If they say it can produce recipes, they're responsible for ensuring the recipes it gives someone won't cause harm. This can fall under different categories if it doesn't depending on the laws of the country/state. Willful Negligence, false advertisement, etc. Ianal, but I think this is similar to the red bull wings, monster energy death cases, etc.
- hannasanarion 1y agoIn this scenario, you would have had to go through an extensive amount of specialist effort to intentionally get the recipe generator to produce something poisonous when it never would have done so otherwise. Product warranties generally don't cover unintended usage, and liability for producers generally dosen't extend to transformative unintended uses that are achieved by circumventing safeguards. If you take a firefighter-grade angle grinder to your balcony rail and remove it, you don't then get to sue the building owner for unsafe construction.
- actsasbuffoon 1y agoSure, I may be responsible, but you’d still be dead. I’d prefer to live in a world where people just didn’t go around making poison cakes.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoIt's a hard concept in all kinds of scenarios. If a pharmacist sells you large amounts of pseudoephedrine, which you're secretly using to manufacture meth, which of you is responsible? It's not an either/or, and we've decided as a society that the pharmacist needs to shoulder a lot of the responsibility by putting restrictions on when and how they'll sell it.
- codyvoda 1y agosure but we’re talking about literal text, not physical drugs or bomb making materials. censorship is silly for LLMs and “jailbreaking” as a concept for LLMs is silly. this entire line of discussion is silly
- kennywinker 1y agoExcept it’s not, because people are using LLMs for things, thinking they can put guardrails on them that will hold. As an example, I’m thinking of the car dealership chatbot that gave away $1 cars: https://futurism.com/the-byte/car-dealership-ai https://futurism.com/the-byte/car-dealership-ai If these things are being sold as things that can be locked down, it’s fair game to find holes in those lockdowns.
- codyvoda 1y ago…and? people do stupid things and face consequences? so what? I’d also advocate you don’t expose your unsecured database to the public internet
- kennywinker 1y agoAnd yet you’re out here seemingly saying “database security is silly, databases can’t be secured and what’s the point of protecting them anyway - SSNs are just information, it’s the people who use them for identity theft who do something illegal”
- 1y ago
- loremium 1y agoThis is assuming people are responsible and with good will. But how many of the gun victims each year would be dead if there were no guns? How many radiation victims would there be without the invention of nuclear bombs? safety is indeed a property of knowledge.
- miroljub 1y agoJust imagine how many people would not die in traffic incidents if the knowledge of the wheel had been successfully hidden?
- handfuloflight 1y agoNice try but the causal chain isn't as simple as wheels turning → dead people.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 0x457 1y agoIf someone wants to make a bomb, chatgpt saying "sorry I can't help with that" won't prevent that someone from finding out how to make one.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 1y agoThat's really not true, by that logic LLMs provide no value which is obviously false. It's one thing to spend years studying chemistry, it's another to receive a tailored instruction guide in thirty seconds. It will even instruct you how to dodge detection by law enforcement, which a chemistry degree will not.
- 0x457 1y ago> That's really not true, by that logic LLMs provide no value which is obviously false. Way to leep to a (wrong) conclusion. I can lookup a word in a Dictionary.app, I can google it or I can pick up a phisical dictionary book and look it up. You don't even need to look to far: Fight Club (the book) describes how to make a bomb pretty accurately. If you're worrying that "well you need to know which books to pick up at the library"...you can probably ask chatgpt. Yeah it's not as fast, but if you think this is what stops everyone from making a bomb, then well...sucks to be you and live in such fear?
- OJFord 1y agoWhat if I ask it for something fun to make because I'm bored, and the response is bomb-building instructions? There isn't a (sending) email analogue to that.
- BriggyDwiggs42 1y agoIn what world would it respond with bomb building instructions?
- OJFord 1y agoWhy might that happen is not really the point is it? If I ask for a photorealistic image of a man sitting at a computer, a priori I might think 'in what world would I expect seven fingers and no thumbs per hand', alas...
- BriggyDwiggs42 1y agoI’ll take the example as an example of an LLM initiating harmful behavior in general and admit that such a thing is perfectly possible. I think the issue is down to the degree to which preventing such initiation impinges on the agency of the user, and I don’t think that requests for information should be refused because it’s lots of imposition for very little gain. I’m perfectly alright with conditioning/prompting the model not to readily jump into serious, potentially harmful targets without the direct request of the user.
- __MatrixMan__ 1y agoIf I were to make a list of fun things, I think that blowing stuff up would feature in the top ten. It's not unreasonable that an LLM might agree.
- QuadmasterXLII 1y agoif it used search and ingested a malicious website, for example.
- 1y ago
- kelseyfrog 1y agoThere's more than one way to view it. Determining who has responsibility is one. Simply wanting there to be fewer causal factors which result in death threats and bombs being made is another. If I want there to be fewer[1] bombs, examining the causal factors and affecting change there is a reasonable position to hold. 1. Simply fewer; don't pigeon hole this into zero.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago> if you use LLMs to make bombs or spam hate speech, you’re responsible. What if it's easier enough to make bombs or spam hate speech with LLMs that it DDoSes law enforcement and other mechanisms that otherwise prevent bombings and harassment? Is there any place for regulation limiting the availability or capabilities of tools that make crimes vastly easier and more accessible than they would be otherwise?
- 3np 1y agoThe same argument could be made about computers. Do you prefer a society where CPUs are regulated like guns and you can't buy anything freer than an iPhone off the shelf?
- BriggyDwiggs42 1y agoI mean this stuff is so easy to do though. An extremist doesn’t even need to make a bomb, he/she already drives a car that can kill many people. In the US it’s easy to get a firearm that could do the same. If capacity + randomness were a sufficient model for human behavior, we’d never gather in crowds, since a solid minority would be rammed, shot up, bombed etc. People don’t want to do that stuff; that’s our security. We can prevent some of the most egregious examples with censorship and banning, but what actually works is the fuzzy shit, give people opportunities, social connections, etc. so they don’t fall into extremism.