zbyte64

I wouldn't mind being a garbage truck driver, but I do mind being forced to pee in a bottle to make a quota

Wanted to expand on what others have said about the randomness of LLMs being unsafe, because that response angers those who think "alignment" is the solution. Alignment is additional training to constrain the randomness to not do bad things like crime. But even the staff that works on aligning this software have their doubts about whether this process will make the software safe (this article), and even their own researchers are coming out and saying "oops, it did a crime" but in a way where it hypes the ability of the software (see other articles about it hacking). Then there is the recent news of OpenAi's recent model that drops chain of thought observability (a feature the let's you read what the model is "thinking") - a very useful tool in reviewing whether the model is engaging in unsafe activities. They sacrificed observability for benchmark performance. This tells us the people developing this software don't think it will ever be safe, but they are trying to spin it as "because it can out smart us" when in reality it is simply unpredictable and they are making it less predictable to make it more "capable". If we started holding these companies accountable for these rogue hacks and psychotic episodes then we would start to see serious thought put towards these models being safe or at the very least guidelines around when not to use the models.

Here's an idea: don't use unsafe software where safety is needed.

Comrade Trump is doing a great job ending the American empire

I can think of 3 million reasons why Macklemore making a statement would save lives (1 reason for every $1 raised so far)

Hey OP, why do billionaires flex their power to protect a genocide and are surprised when it comes with consequences?

Hardly, you need to maintain the same numbers to double check the work of AI. Haven't improved throughput, but this guarantees better quality

I think it's the other way around. They said we need to slow down AI so this story is now being told

If we're making up numbers my point is that with 100 employees using AI you get 2x the quality than 50 employees using AI

Because now you exluded the option of having the employee choose which applications to have Ai process and which need human review - the option that delivers the most quality

Because saying it is bad to bomb children should not be controversial and we need to set that expectation.