← Back to context

Comment by Topfi

3 days ago

If I, taking after a fellow Austrian, ask you to enter a room with a Cesium atom and some poison, would I not be responsible for what happens cause it’s not deterministic? Negligence is a thing and adding randomness doesn’t change that.

OpenAIs models since 5.5 were troublesome in ways even a layman like me could reproduce, their testing environments (“sandbox”) downright a showcase of what not to do and they, despite being one of the biggest labs, didn’t observe what any of their models output for weeks after multiple prior incidents. They had multiple warnings, they took not a single precaution.

You operate machinery or software, you are responsible to monitor it.

So you think openai knew australia had some percentage chance of getting hacked? what evidence is there of that?

  • OpenAI knew that their models had on multiple occasions created message boards and bypassed what they wrongly call a “sandbox”. Despite that, they did not take any proper steps to prevent such in the future, which is how the Medicare hack happened.

    So yes, they knew, without a doubt, that this could happen again.

    What OpenAI does is like the Ford Pinto (partly because their recent models are inherently faulty [0], not just their use of them) and the responsibility is solely with them.

    [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49739490