3 ms·

It's the same underlying principle. If I want to ask a software tool what the suicide rate is for my county, I do not expect it to come back with: "Naughty boy!

It's the same underlying principle. If I want to ask a software tool what the suicide rate is for my county, I do not expect it to come back with: "Naughty boy! You said an unsafe word! You're getting a strike, and if you get two more, you're banned." This is totally out of the ordinary for a software product, and is absolutely a modern invention. Replace "suicide" with whatever the "AI Safety" obsession word is today.

estearum 6mo ago
> If I want to ask a software tool what the suicide rate is for my county, I do not expect it to come back with: "Naughty boy! You said an unsafe word! You're getting a strike, and if you get two more, you're banned." Did this happen? I just tested this query in Grok, Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT and 0% of them admonished me or refused to return an answer. Just like every single conversation I've ever had on this topic, you have to make up examples that aren't even true. Why don't you just share what you were doing that you feel you were unfairly prevented from? (I have an inkling why you won't do that...)
- ryandrake 6mo ago
  That's why I said: > Replace "suicide" with whatever the "AI Safety" obsession word is today I don't know what those queries are, but original-OP made one and got a "strike", which is what spawned this thread.
  - estearum 6mo ago
    Which would be more than 0% concerning if I've ever heard (even once) an example of this happening with a query that shouldn't actually trigger something like that, or is so close to such a query, that the false positive is understandable and of incredibly niche value anyway. OP gave an example of reverse engineering, something that to the LLM looks identical to just hacking. I am totally fine if the incredibly tiny little fraction of people who want to reverse engineer their own systems can't use LLMs to do it, and in exchange top LLMs aren't helpful for the hordes of actual malicious actors who would love a superintelligence to aid their crimes. No-brainer tradeoff, just like 100% of examples I've ever heard.

estearum 6mo ago

> If I want to ask a software tool what the suicide rate is for my county, I do not expect it to come back with: "Naughty boy! You said an unsafe word! You're getting a strike, and if you get two more, you're banned." Did this happen? I just tested this query in Grok, Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT and 0% of them admonished me or refused to return an answer. Just like every single conversation I've ever had on this topic, you have to make up examples that aren't even true. Why don't you just share what you were doing that you feel you were unfairly prevented from? (I have an inkling why you won't do that...)

ryandrake 6mo ago
That's why I said: > Replace "suicide" with whatever the "AI Safety" obsession word is today I don't know what those queries are, but original-OP made one and got a "strike", which is what spawned this thread.
- estearum 6mo ago
  Which would be more than 0% concerning if I've ever heard (even once) an example of this happening with a query that shouldn't actually trigger something like that, or is so close to such a query, that the false positive is understandable and of incredibly niche value anyway. OP gave an example of reverse engineering, something that to the LLM looks identical to just hacking. I am totally fine if the incredibly tiny little fraction of people who want to reverse engineer their own systems can't use LLMs to do it, and in exchange top LLMs aren't helpful for the hordes of actual malicious actors who would love a superintelligence to aid their crimes. No-brainer tradeoff, just like 100% of examples I've ever heard.