So a Board member wrote a paper about focusing on safety above profit in AI development. Sam Altman did not take kindly to this concept and started pushing to fire her (to which end he may or may not have lied to other Board members to split them up). Sam gets fired for trying to fire someone for putting safety over profit. Everything exploded and now profit is firmly at the head of the table.
I like nothing about this version of events either.
I feel like this isn't surprising knowing about all the other stuff altman has done. Seems like yet another loss for the greater good in the name of profit.
What other stuff has he done? Genuinely curious.
Now what would the company do if the AI model started putting safety above profit (i.e. refusing to lie to profit the user (aka reducing market value))? How fucked are we if they create an AGI that puts profit above safety?
Entirely. We all die. The light cone is turned into the maximum amount of "profit" possible.
This is still better than a torment maximizer, which may come as some comfort to the tiny dollar bills made of the atoms that used to be you.
So basically it's exactly what I expected and I'm not surprised in the slightest. Amazing how that works.
It's not too surprising considering they don't even have basic essential security features in 2023 like two-factor authentication. Absolutely pitiful.
The thing that shits me about this is google appear to the public to be late to the party but the reality is they DID put safety before profit when it came to AI. The sheer amount of research and papers put out by them on AI should have proven to people they know what they're doing.
And then openAI throw caution into the wind and essentially make google and others panic knee jerk because there's really money to be made, and now everyone seems to be throwing caution into the wind and pushing it into the mainstream before society is ready.
All in the name of shareholders.
I think it's not enough, disable all the safe guards and let people decide if the output is what they want, hate being treated like a child trying to buy a M rated game.
But this isn't an M rated game, it's a transformative new technology with potentially horrifying consequences to misuse
By answering questions? We are general intelligences that can answer questions. Oh shit oh fuck what am I doing talking.
Hey guess what, we general intelligences are capable of terrible things.
That was exactly my point. AI isn't, though. All it can really do is respond.
I'm sure the military is so excited about AI because of its ability to "respond".
If you can get chatgpt to drive your murder drone I'd be very impressed. Telsa can't figure it out in 2d.
My brother in Christ, the AI revolution is more than chatgpt.
Call when it gets dangerous enough to be an issue.
Im bot sure if you are aware but thats litterally what makes ai so usefull its just responding to external inputs and doesent habe to be programmed value for value because it getsTrained with datasets and chat GPT isn't gonna hurt a fly the reason its m Rated is because the idiots who made it didn't filter the input content whilst web scraping its litterally too stupid to Funktionass a weapon except for misinformation which it outputs regardless oft its age rating openai is just a buncha cucs who switched to a close source system and can't actually make any gold company decisions
TL;DR: Fuck openai
FWIW I work in the field and agree with this. LLMs in the current state are not so dangerous they can't be released to public. Generative image and video models are a much bigger threat, but that was largely something which came from open source.
If we really want to pearl clutch, it is NVIDIA which is really propping open this Pandora's box in terms of putting the capability in irresponsible hands
Are the cards really powerful enough for so much fuss?
Definitely. An A100 system is around $10k which is expensive, but definitely in reach, and you need two of them to run a 70B parameter model. Possibly one if you are clever about it.
And you can still do plenty of damage with a $1000 consumer grade GPU. Most deepfake videos are trained on these platforms.
Okay, so let's do a thought experiment, and take off all the safeguards.
Oops, you made:
Saying "don't misuse it" isn't enough to stop people misusing it
And that's just with chatgpt - AI isn't just a question and answer machine - I suggest you read about "the paperclip maximiser" as a very good example of how misalignment of general purpose AI can go horribly wrong
I was going to say that a well-determined individual would find this information regardless. But the difference here is that it being so easily accessible would increase the risks of someone doing something reaaaally stupid by a factor of 100. Yikes.
None of that is complicated.
For you or many others, for sure it won't be complicated. The world is vast, and the environment you are in is very specific to you. Many other kids may have phones, sure, but they are not in the same environment as you or me.
Some non-sciency kid will have a hard time getting to do what their edgy mind wants them to do, unless an AI guides them mini-step by mini-step.
I don't think AI, especially chat bots, will be more useful than a youtuber. It's not particularly easy to make powerful explosives, and gun powder is kind of trash for bombs. I'd imagine chatgpt would blow up more curious kids than aid them lol
I mean half that is deviant art and you can look up how to make explosives on youtube chem channels or in books. It's not hard to rig up a custom detonator if you can get the energetics.
What are we going to do with these Universities, just teaching anyone how to be a chemical engineer!!?
Jesus some of you guys completely miss the point.
The last 2 already exist it's called stable diffusion. And for awhile Bing did it too.
ChatGPT was very far from the first publically available generative AI. It didn't even do images at first.
Also, there are plenty of YouTube channels which show you how to make all sorts of extremely dangerous explosives already.
But the concern isn't which was the first generative ai - their "idea" was that AIs - of all types, including generalised - should just be released as-is, with no further safeguards.
That doesn't consider that OpenAI doesn't only develop text generation AIs. Generalised AI can do horrifying things, even just by accidental misconfiguration (see the paperclip optimiser example).
But even a GANN like chatGPT can be coerced to generate non-text data with the right prompting.
Even in that example, one can't just dig up those sorts of videos without, at minimum, leaving a trail. But an unresticted pretrained model can be distributed and run locally, and used without trace to generate any content whatsoever that it's capable of generating.
And with a generalised AI, the only constraint to the prompt "kill everybody except me" becomes available compute.
And while you’re at it, remove safety on guns. And seatbelts. And might as well get rid of those pesky boom gates. I can hear the trains just fine, I don’t like being treated like a child. /s
Guns and car crashes may break my bones, but words will never hurt me
That makes a great song jingle but it’s been proven that you are more a product of words around you than you want to admit in your comment.
Have you ever heard of propaganda? Or manufacturing consent? Or what about the whole field of psychology?
10k%! A friend works in brand marketing at Google. They'd been using internally for months before market pressure forced them to start onboarding public end users. I've been in the earliest of the external betas (bc I give a lot of product feedback over the years?) and from the beginning the user experiences have been the most locked down of all the consumer LLMs
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Toner, who serves as director of strategy and foundational research grants at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, allegedly drew Altman's negative attention by co-writing a paper on different ways AI companies can "signal" their commitment to safety through "costly" words and actions.
In the paper, Toner contrasts OpenAI's public launch of ChatGPT last year with Anthropic's "deliberate deci[sion] not to productize its technology in order to avoid stoking the flames of AI hype."
She also wrote that, "by delaying the release of [Anthropic chatbot] Claude until another company put out a similarly capable product, Anthropic was showing its willingness to avoid exactly the kind of frantic corner-cutting that the release of ChatGPT appeared to spur."
At the same time, Duhigg's piece also gives some credence to the idea that the OpenAI board felt it needed to be able to hold Altman "accountable" in order to fulfill its mission to "make sure AI benefits all of humanity," as one unnamed source put it.
"It's hard to say if the board members were more terrified of sentient computers or of Altman going rogue," Duhigg writes.
The piece also offers a behind-the-scenes view into Microsoft's three-pronged response to the OpenAI drama and the ways the Redmond-based tech giant reportedly found the board's moves "mind-bogglingly stupid."
The original article contains 414 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 48%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
