It’s like you bought a car and deliberately hit the wall to make a headline “cars make you disabled”. Or bought a hammer, hit your thumb and blame hammers for this.
Guys, it’s a TOOL. Every tool is both useful and harmful. It’s up to you how you use it.
To me, it seems like they are arguing that “testing” whether a hammer can smash your thumb doesn’t actually provide any useful information on the safety of a hammer.
To me, it seems they are saying that Estwing makes a better hammer than Fischer-Price, even though the Fischer-Price hammer is far less likely to cause injury if you hit your thumb.
All this article says is that we shouldn’t give a toddler a real hammer, and we shouldn’t stuff a general purpose LLM like ChatGPT into a Tickle-Me-Elmo.
Have you noticed how we aren’t getting articles about chatgpt providing the steps to build a bomb anymore? The point is that these companies are completely capable of doing something about it
The comoanies are completely capable of doing something, but this is not a competition in doing something. Plus, aiming for a PG13 world will have consequences far worse than a text generator doing exactly what it is asked.
It’s like you bought a car and deliberately hit the wall to make a headline “cars make you disabled”. Or bought a hammer, hit your thumb and blame hammers for this.
Guys, it’s a TOOL. Every tool is both useful and harmful. It’s up to you how you use it.
Car makers test exactly that, and for good measure since cars can and do crash!
What are you suggesting, that we buy cars that didn’t pass crash tests?
To me it seems like you arguing something similar for AI.
To me, it seems like they are arguing that “testing” whether a hammer can smash your thumb doesn’t actually provide any useful information on the safety of a hammer.
To me, it seems they are saying that Estwing makes a better hammer than Fischer-Price, even though the Fischer-Price hammer is far less likely to cause injury if you hit your thumb.
All this article says is that we shouldn’t give a toddler a real hammer, and we shouldn’t stuff a general purpose LLM like ChatGPT into a Tickle-Me-Elmo.
Are you saying hammers should be thumb-hitting-proof?
Hammers have been perfected over millenia. Cars over a century, with regulations and testing for safety getting stricter by the year.
Last time I checked, no car actively encourages you to drive into a wall.
Have you noticed how we aren’t getting articles about chatgpt providing the steps to build a bomb anymore? The point is that these companies are completely capable of doing something about it
The comoanies are completely capable of doing something, but this is not a competition in doing something. Plus, aiming for a PG13 world will have consequences far worse than a text generator doing exactly what it is asked.
But ChatGPT told me to!
I think the headline would be “Illegal, Non-Safety Tested Car Disables Driver in Crash”