4 ms·

> …are you sure a brave stance against safety and welfare is what we need in this moment? Is it out of convenience to not see the hypocrisy? "Safety and welfar

> …are you sure a brave stance against safety and welfare is what we need in this moment? Is it out of convenience to not see the hypocrisy? "Safety and welfare" for you and me. Yet if you work at Anthropic or OAI, or are a partner of them then you can let it rip! Oh, and when they illegally do just that - you get a "we're sorry bro" blog post that's designed to drum up FOMO and, most importantly, zero accountability. Yet, if anyone else abuses a model in that same manner? Illegal! You're defending a very slippery slope here. Also, who do you think trained these models to have these capabilities? It sure as shit wasn't content that OAI or Anthropic had by default. Why should I trust them with these skills when they "have not spent their lives studying this"? Maybe start looking around before it's being used against you [0]. [0] https://www.gadgetreview.com/anthropic-is-building-ai-to-predict-which-activists-police-should-watch https://www.gadgetreview.com/anthropic-is-building-ai-to-pre...

bbor 25d ago
1. Slippery slopes are usually seen as a fallacy. 2. You're misinterpreting this as a battle over what kind of topics you can use a hosted chatbot for, and which are forbidden for corporate reasons. That is, to say least, small potatoes. 3. Blaming the companies for "zero accountability" is pretty odd. All of this is brand new, and the two big ones are both pushing for new laws on this very thing. 4. Your last point... I'm not sure I understand, sorry. They're experts in AI. Are you saying that they need to be experts in, say, bioweaponry? If so, that doesn't really follow IMO. 5. Pointing out an example of the government comissioning a private corporation to build a system to drack dissidents is exactly the "safety and welfare" work that I'm a proponent of!
- windexh8er 24d ago
  > 1. Slippery slopes are usually seen as a fallacy. Deep, tell me more. Was that fun to type? Or did you copy it from a chatbot? > 2. You're misinterpreting this as a battle over what kind of topics you can use a hosted chatbot for, and which are forbidden for corporate reasons. That is, to say least, small potatoes. No, actually I'm not. I think you've missed the point. But thanks for mansplaining this down to "small potatoes". I prefer "spuds", anyway. > 3. Blaming the companies for "zero accountability" is pretty odd. All of this is brand new, and the two big ones are both pushing for new laws on this very thing. You must love the dichotomy of pay for play in a world where the pay side stole the data they're selling back for play. Laws? Give me a break. If laws were of actual consideration frontier labs WOULD NOT EXIST. > 4. Your last point... I'm not sure I understand, sorry. They're experts in AI. Are you saying that they need to be experts in, say, bioweaponry? If so, that doesn't really follow IMO. Is it really that hard to follow? A system that they're selling access to, and that they're saying is "dangerous" for the normies, but not for their own employees or chosen customers, is fucking laughable. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that they conveniently choose their side of the argument that's best for them in these situations. OUR MODELS ARE POWERFUL! BUY NOW! OUR MODELS ARE POWERFUL! REGULATE THIS SO PEOPLE CAN'T ABUSE! I'm kind of disappointed this was not flanked by a potato sized snippet of wisdom. > 5. Pointing out an example of the government comissioning a private corporation to build a system to drack dissidents is exactly the "safety and welfare" work that I'm a proponent of! WOW. I mean, just wow. Enjoy your surveillance state man. I'm not going to sugar coat this but you're part of the problem, IMO. I'm sure you wave happily as you drive past the Flock cameras in your area. So much safer! Dissidents be gone! "Drack" (sic) them all, but... Not me. o_O

bbor 25d ago

1. Slippery slopes are usually seen as a fallacy. 2. You're misinterpreting this as a battle over what kind of topics you can use a hosted chatbot for, and which are forbidden for corporate reasons. That is, to say least, small potatoes. 3. Blaming the companies for "zero accountability" is pretty odd. All of this is brand new, and the two big ones are both pushing for new laws on this very thing. 4. Your last point... I'm not sure I understand, sorry. They're experts in AI. Are you saying that they need to be experts in, say, bioweaponry? If so, that doesn't really follow IMO. 5. Pointing out an example of the government comissioning a private corporation to build a system to drack dissidents is exactly the "safety and welfare" work that I'm a proponent of!

windexh8er 24d ago
> 1. Slippery slopes are usually seen as a fallacy. Deep, tell me more. Was that fun to type? Or did you copy it from a chatbot? > 2. You're misinterpreting this as a battle over what kind of topics you can use a hosted chatbot for, and which are forbidden for corporate reasons. That is, to say least, small potatoes. No, actually I'm not. I think you've missed the point. But thanks for mansplaining this down to "small potatoes". I prefer "spuds", anyway. > 3. Blaming the companies for "zero accountability" is pretty odd. All of this is brand new, and the two big ones are both pushing for new laws on this very thing. You must love the dichotomy of pay for play in a world where the pay side stole the data they're selling back for play. Laws? Give me a break. If laws were of actual consideration frontier labs WOULD NOT EXIST. > 4. Your last point... I'm not sure I understand, sorry. They're experts in AI. Are you saying that they need to be experts in, say, bioweaponry? If so, that doesn't really follow IMO. Is it really that hard to follow? A system that they're selling access to, and that they're saying is "dangerous" for the normies, but not for their own employees or chosen customers, is fucking laughable. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that they conveniently choose their side of the argument that's best for them in these situations. OUR MODELS ARE POWERFUL! BUY NOW! OUR MODELS ARE POWERFUL! REGULATE THIS SO PEOPLE CAN'T ABUSE! I'm kind of disappointed this was not flanked by a potato sized snippet of wisdom. > 5. Pointing out an example of the government comissioning a private corporation to build a system to drack dissidents is exactly the "safety and welfare" work that I'm a proponent of! WOW. I mean, just wow. Enjoy your surveillance state man. I'm not going to sugar coat this but you're part of the problem, IMO. I'm sure you wave happily as you drive past the Flock cameras in your area. So much safer! Dissidents be gone! "Drack" (sic) them all, but... Not me. o_O