← Back to context

Comment by mag7269

12 hours ago

"What happens when any [COMPANY] in the world stops caring about this? What if they let an experimental, cutting-edge [PRODUCTS] with no safety features (or worse, one that's [DESIGNED] to be malicious) on [ANYWHERE] and give it a simple goal? A goal like 'make the most money, by any means necessary', 'find a way to leave this payload on as many computers as possible', 'flood all websites using this language with garbage and make their internet completely unusable', 'get this person imprisoned or killed at any cost'."

Bro, this is what we literally, currently, have rn. lmfaol.

No, we have something that's less apocalyptic right now. You're talking about abuse, I was talking about the automation of abuse that's faster and more pervasive than anything individual bad actors could've done in the past. It's like if companies found a way to quickly and cheaply poison the entire world's drinking water supply, and then others argue that Nestle has already restricted the supply of water for profit on a smaller scale in the past, so this isn't new or worth caring about.

You aren't understanding this at all.

The frontier labs have hundreds of the best people in the world working on safety and alignment. They care deeply.

What happens when some random Chinese open source model, distilled on Astra, gets alliterated and now has no guardrails? Any script kiddie in the world could wreak havoc with it.

It turns out that guardrails matter.

  • It is hard to take their concerns for safety seriously, when they have been constantly talking about how dangerous their latest model is, before then deciding to release it to the public.

    • > before then deciding to release it to the public.

      You mean, with safeguards that block the dangerous things? Safeguards so aggressive that the public complains about them?