Based on the comment section here, it seems like the opposite; the majority of the people here need a reminder that companies aren't actually genies that can only tell falsehoods, where you can only understand what they are saying by correctly guessing the conspiracy underneath.
Taking nothing at face value gives you just as much of a distorted view of reality as taking everything at face value.
I'm disappointed that this is the level of discourse happening here, when the default assumption is such conspiratorial thinking. I expect that from tiktok and low-information social media, not here.
When your default explanation for everything is "companies are lying about everything", you end up just as incorrect as believing they're always telling the truth.
It's not outlandish that models have these capabilities, the number of CVEs I see as a sysadmin has exploded and we're seeing novel math discoveries nearly every week now. OpenAI does not need to pretend to commit a felony to demonstrate it, that's pure conspiratorial thinking.
I don’t believe I argued that an LLM couldn’t find and exploit a vulnerability and even break out of some layer of technical controls. That seems realistic and has been demonstrated before and I mentioned that LLMs are used in offensive security work.
Also, I listed the view points I had to show that it seems other more reasonable first assumptions don’t seem likely, therefore, the last potential of this being either faked or carefully not avoided seems more likely than the others (based on the current information we have).
Could you clarify which point or assumption you are objecting to?
> Also, I listed the view points I had to show that it seems other more reasonable first assumptions don’t seem likely
No, if you review what you wrote, you did not. You stated your belief that this looks good for them, and aligns with their strategy, and then concluded it must mean this was done on purpose. Cui bono is not evidence, it identifies suspects. It is not evidence of malice over incompetence.
Evidence is taking a look at possibilities, and going "how would I expect the world to look if this were hypothesis true, before I learned these additional facts?", comparing it to what actual happened, and then you must divide it by how likely you think the hypothesis is, before said evidence.
Sam Altman intentionally positioning his company to commit a felony and be investigated by the authorities for days, just for clout, is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.
Also, importantly, even if we think e.g. Sam Altman would do this, a corporation is not a person, it's operated by individuals with differing goals. I doubt Sam Altman personally is organizing every test of the model, and there is no reason to believe this specific test would be organized by him, as a prior, rather than by a normal security researcher, who presumably is less motivated by the company's bottom line.
Genuine question, was this comment written without opening the link? Because I can't see how you've come to this conclusion unless you're skipping several steps. The ads in TFA still look like ads to me.
"ads will no longer look like ads" (in the future). Ads are clearly marked in the first step, but will likely be more and more blended over time (or worse, biasing the model and therefore the output itself). That's the logical future, because that's better for the advertiser, which is the paying customer.
Yeah, that would be a problem. Luckily, the actual post we're discussing isn't putting any advertising in the model.
This is a very important distinction to make -- complaints should be be about what is happening, and should distinguish that from what is not yet happening and should not. Because beyond the maxim that we should try to deal in facts... if OpenAI thinks people can't tell the difference anyways, they'll be justified in thinking they may as well just do the thing they're already being accused of doing.
Why would you think that? An ad supported product has misaligned incentives, everyone can see that and that's why the confidence erodes from that moment on.
You're living in the era in which saying "Stallman was right" is a dead cold take. Every big tech company sold out exactly like the hippies told you they would back when Google was a dream place to work for and Meta was still a twinkle in zuk's eyes.
That's the reason why. That's just too big of an "if".
Any premise that is predicated on an artificially-induced complete paradigm (counter to the interests of capital, no less) shift to bear significant fruit is pretty much a non-starter. You need incredible buy in for that (which right-to-repair is just too niche to have), and established interests will still push against it every step of the way.
Maybe the EU could do it, but even then I'm skeptical.
I feel like you're not actually engaging with GP's point, Jonathan Swift.
Their point is that unpopular climate policies are exactly what is pushing the general populace towards this sort of regressive climate policy you're describing. "Maybe we should make a change in political leadership" is not a productive contribution when the current leadership is the result of bad policy messaging. GP isn't opposing leadership change, they're explaining how to move towards it.
(As much as I'd like to believe that people will just gain an educated understanding of the issues and choose correctly, the unfortunate fact is that real-world politics doesn't work like that, and has to contend with the fact that populism is what wins elections)
Depending on how you (you specifically) are defining "fully stated":
1. This is very literally what already happens, it's called a EULA.
2. In practice this means you are required to personally come to the customer's house to fix bugs (or any other ridiculous edge case that wasn't "fully stated"). As much as I strongly agree the law should swing much further in the direction of the consumer, as GP points out, that only holds until it's your obligation to the customer on the line. "In favor of the customer over anything else" is not a legally viable clause.
> This is very literally what already happens, it's called a EULA.
Yes, but they "reserve the right" to update whenever, making it pointless
> "In favor of the customer over anything else" is not a legally viable clause.
I'm sure that legislators could put the principle down in a much clearer way. What's lacking is the will.
> I'm sure that legislators could put the principle down in a much clearer way.
That's precisely the problem here. You're "sure" that a problem you don't actually fully understand is trivially solved in a simple manner, when the reality is that this sort of thing is incredibly complicated, and there's a multitude of reasons and competing interests that have resulted in the current equilibrium.
This is the sort of change that requires a country's laws to have to be rewritten from the ground-up, because it invalidates so many assumptions. It's the sort of thing you typically need a constitutional amendment (or at least, a novel interpretation of the existing text) for.
So, yeah, they're lacking the political will for that.
If you have a race condition, "correct action" is to solve that, because you shouldn't be papering over server-side bugs with client-side Javascript (and yes, it's a bug, because I shouldn't see an error page if I press the back button after logging in (and trying to navigate to what I was doing before logging in) either, which I still see quite often)
reply