Comment by ben_w
1 hour ago
I suspect the current models probably can find literal millions lying around for the taking, given they could pull off the incident under discussion.
Tens of millions, even.
Getting them to run correctly is dangling in front of the researcher's noses a carrot labelled "tens of trillions", though I suspect this is an illusion in much the same way that Wikipedia is not valued at [peak cost of Encyclopaedia Britannica] * [global population with internet connection].
> And we do have experience policing people around financial incentives, too. Nothing perfect, but also not nothing.
Yes but be careful anthropomorphising the LLMs too much. They're only somewhat human-like in their behaviour, and to the extent that they're human-like they demonstrate a huge range of personality disorders: https://www.personalitybenchmark.ai
Though plus side, apparently not evil: https://arxiv.org/html/2406.14703v2
I am not anthropomorphising the LLMs at all, I was talking about the obligations we put on humans using/making/etc. machines etc.
Hmm. I think I misunderstood what you meant by "experience policing people around financial incentives" in that case.
Simple examples here would be higher financial transparency obligations or more closely policing transactions.