Comment by AnthonyMouse
13 hours ago
> It would be a very different story if someone discovered a new type of WMD that anyone could make in a few days from commonly available materials, if only they knew the secret recipe.
It would need even more to be public. Suppose it was easy to make a biological weapon. You wouldn't be able to effectively censor it anyway and trying to would leave you sitting on an apocalypse bomb waiting for it to leak to someone nefarious or get independently rediscovered before anyone else is allowed to discuss it. What you need is for knowledge of how it works to be public so that everyone can join in the effort to quickly devise countermeasures before some nutcase destroys the world.
Moreover, if something is already public enough to be in the AI training data then it's already public.
Your plan is to release the secret recipe that anyone can use to make a WMD in a few days to absolutely everyone and hope someone comes up with a countermeasure before some nutcase or terrorist decides to try out the new WMD?
The odds of us inventing and deploying countermeasures to a new bomb or chemical weapon or biological agent in a few days is miniscule. You're gambling with terrible odds to uphold a principle in a hypothetical scenario where it's totally impractical. What happened to responsible disclosure, where you fix the vulnerability before disclosing it to the public?
> What happened to responsible disclosure, where you fix the vulnerability before disclosing it to the public?
The premise of censorship is that you're trying to prevent someone from telling other people something. If the only person who knows how to do it is some scientist who is now going to try to come up with a countermeasure before announcing it, there is no need for a law prohibiting them from doing something they've chosen not to do. And even then it's still not clear that this is the right thing to do, because what if their efforts alone aren't enough to come up with a countermeasure before someone bad rediscovers it? If they decide they need help, the law should prohibit them from telling anyone?
Which brings us back to AI. If the scientist now goes to the AI for help, should it refuse because it's about a biological weapon? What happens if that delays the development of a countermeasure until it's too late?
Meanwhile if this is someone else and they ask the AI about it, it's only going to be in the training data if it's already public or can be deduced from public information, and when that's the case you're already in a race against the clock and you need everyone in on finding a solution. This is why we don't try to censor vulnerabilities that are already out there.
> You're gambling with terrible odds to uphold a principle in a hypothetical scenario where it's totally impractical.
There are some principles that should always be upheld because the exceptions are so rare or ridiculous or purely hypothetical that it's better to eat them than to let exceptions exist at all. The answer has to be "yes, we're going to do it then too" or people get into the business of actually building the censorship apparatus and then everybody wants to use it for everything, when it shouldn't exist to begin with.
> The premise of censorship is that you're trying to prevent someone from telling other people something...
So you're not against individuals self-censoring for public safety, but you're against companies censoring their AIs for public safety. Are you only against AIs censoring information that's already publicly available, or are you against AIs censoring themselves when they know dangerous non-public information? Say the AI was the only thing to know the secret recipe for this WMD. Would this be like the scientist choosing not to tell everyone, or should the AI be designed to tell anyone who asks how to make a WMD?
> There are some principles that should always be upheld because the exceptions are so rare or ridiculous or purely hypothetical...
We're using hypotheticals to clarify the view you're trying to express, not because we think they will happen. And it seems you're expressing an that prohibiting AI censorship should be an absolute rule, even in the hypothetical case where not censoring AI has a 95% chance of wiping out humanity.
This argument seems confused, because you're trying to assert that prohibiting censorship is okay because these dangerous scenarios will never happen, but also that censorship should still be prohibited if such a scenario did happen. If you truly believe the latter, the first assertion is not actually a factor, since you're against censorship even if a dangerous scenario like the one above did happen. And if you truly believe the former, you should be able to say you're against censorship in what you consider to be plausible scenarios, but would be in favor if, hypothetically, there were a great enough danger. Then the discussion would be about whether there are realistic scenarios where lack of censorship is dangerous.
3 replies →