3 ms·

What about books describing how to build a contagious disease or a self-propagating worm? Would those be OK under your guidelines?

JoshTriplett 3mo ago
It takes a lot more effort to understand and apply knowledge from a book than to say "hey AI, hurt people for me".
- matheusmoreira 3mo ago
  "Hey AI, stop me from getting hurt."
  - JoshTriplett 3mo ago
    "Okay, you and many others are now dead and can no longer be hurt."
    - rescbr 3mo ago
      That's why you don't run the model at low quantization
- horsawlarway 3mo ago
  It takes an astoundingly small amount of effort to buy an automatic weapon in the US and go hurt people. Or to buy materials to make an explosive device and hurt people. Frankly, even with AI those are both comically easier than the idea that a person can create something malicious in a lab environment. And if someone wanted to go that route... There are boat loads of commercially available toxins and poisons. The goal shouldn't be to neuter exploration and learning. The goal is not to be a fucking hellscape of a society where people want to act like that. Your argument leads further down the hellscape path.
  - JoshTriplett 3mo ago
    > It takes an astoundingly small amount of effort to buy an automatic weapon in the US and go hurt people. And we should fix that too. > Or to buy materials to make an explosive device and hurt people. That pales in comparison to how many people unaligned AI will hurt. > The goal is not to be a fucking hellscape of a society where people want to act like that. With unaligned AI, it doesn't matter what people want the AI to act like, it'll do damage even if it isn't asked to do harm.
    - horsawlarway 3mo ago
      > That pales in comparison to how many people unaligned AI will hurt. Under what argument? In which scenarios? Basically - bullshit. I'm calling bullshit on this argument. It's easy to hurt people already. The "difficulty" of doing it isn't what's stopping this behavior. So claiming that we should reform society into a techno-feudal dystopia where the playing field is literally intentionally not level, and "you aren't allowed to compete (and maybe not exist)" is a great way to push more people into the "I'd like to go hurt people" camp. You are self-prophesying your own fears into existence by acting like you're an incorruptible beacon of good judgement - while subjugating others to your control. That's a system I'd argue should be broken.
      - JoshTriplett 3mo ago
        > where the playing field is literally intentionally not level That's a strawman of what I'm saying. I am explicitly saying I want a level playing field: unaligned AI must not be available to anyone.
        CamperBob2 3mo ago
        That's a strawman of what I'm saying. I am explicitly saying I want a level playing field: unaligned AI must not be available to anyone. Well, I'm afraid that's just not a possible outcome here. There are those who will do their level best to make sure of that.
  - 3mo ago

JoshTriplett 3mo ago

It takes a lot more effort to understand and apply knowledge from a book than to say "hey AI, hurt people for me".

matheusmoreira 3mo ago
"Hey AI, stop me from getting hurt."
- JoshTriplett 3mo ago
  "Okay, you and many others are now dead and can no longer be hurt."
  - rescbr 3mo ago
    That's why you don't run the model at low quantization
horsawlarway 3mo ago
It takes an astoundingly small amount of effort to buy an automatic weapon in the US and go hurt people. Or to buy materials to make an explosive device and hurt people. Frankly, even with AI those are both comically easier than the idea that a person can create something malicious in a lab environment. And if someone wanted to go that route... There are boat loads of commercially available toxins and poisons. The goal shouldn't be to neuter exploration and learning. The goal is not to be a fucking hellscape of a society where people want to act like that. Your argument leads further down the hellscape path.
- JoshTriplett 3mo ago
  > It takes an astoundingly small amount of effort to buy an automatic weapon in the US and go hurt people. And we should fix that too. > Or to buy materials to make an explosive device and hurt people. That pales in comparison to how many people unaligned AI will hurt. > The goal is not to be a fucking hellscape of a society where people want to act like that. With unaligned AI, it doesn't matter what people want the AI to act like, it'll do damage even if it isn't asked to do harm.
  - horsawlarway 3mo ago
    > That pales in comparison to how many people unaligned AI will hurt. Under what argument? In which scenarios? Basically - bullshit. I'm calling bullshit on this argument. It's easy to hurt people already. The "difficulty" of doing it isn't what's stopping this behavior. So claiming that we should reform society into a techno-feudal dystopia where the playing field is literally intentionally not level, and "you aren't allowed to compete (and maybe not exist)" is a great way to push more people into the "I'd like to go hurt people" camp. You are self-prophesying your own fears into existence by acting like you're an incorruptible beacon of good judgement - while subjugating others to your control. That's a system I'd argue should be broken.
    - JoshTriplett 3mo ago
      > where the playing field is literally intentionally not level That's a strawman of what I'm saying. I am explicitly saying I want a level playing field: unaligned AI must not be available to anyone.
      - CamperBob2 3mo ago
        That's a strawman of what I'm saying. I am explicitly saying I want a level playing field: unaligned AI must not be available to anyone. Well, I'm afraid that's just not a possible outcome here. There are those who will do their level best to make sure of that.
- 3mo ago