It's a really strange decision to choose the security council as the forum, given its purpose.
I think the reasonable thing would have been to let some sort of committee of interested countries to have access to a bunch of relevant. It could still be public and in video form.
I like the call for ensuring that AI isn't concentrated in one company or country though. I would be happy if this were followed, with appropriate EU efforts to make good training accelerators etc. so that we could have our own reasonable 10T+ models.
Is your idea that other groups (who have stated less concerned with AI safety) would stop their own AI efforts of those concerned with AI safety stopped?
The other groups don't randomly hack everyone around. The other groups are less gung-ho into pushing ai everywhere, whether it works for that use case or not.
In here, I am specifically saying "the specific companies that are producing the unsafe products should stop". That is what people said about food safety too. You are the one poisoning people, you should stop. And crucially, the companies least capable to produce safe food should not be the ones writing the regulations. Their close friends is "independent" organizations should not be the ones writing them either.
1. Are you claiming the other models have not been used for hacking? Or merely that only the big US labs are actually reporting when their models are using for hacking?
2. Wouldn't that big like only 2 food companies releasing reports when their food makes people sick, then claiming that it's only those 2 companies with bad food, and that all the companies that don't report then their food makes people sick... that those companies don't make people sick? Like if only McDonalds and KFC released reports when their food make people sick, and all the other companies, would you similarly claim that the other companies don't make people sick?
3.
> In case of AI, your AI hacks, you are deemed responsible. You pay the fine, you are prosecuted
Do you actually believe that is true? I'd say the opposite has been shown to be true - even when it's not a case of "operator gave non-malicious instructions, system acted maliciously" -- i.e. the cases of all of the many government-run and private hacking groups globally for years - do all those hacking groups actually face consequences for their actions? Or what makes you think things will suddenly change now in terms of consequences?
1.) Using a model for hacking is a crime. Those labs do not report "someone used our model to hack" situations. Those labs use their own models in a negligent way that is pretty that leads to hacking.
The initial reporting came from HuggingFace - victim. The labs are trying to shit the blame to "the models" from themselves. We do not have to buy that ridiculous framing.
2.) The situation here is McDonalds and KFC making experiments with putting poop close to food, then reporting the people got sick and then wanting to write rules for other companies.
Nope, first stop putting poop close to food.
3.) Yes, intentional hacking is a crime and yes people went to jail. Yes, CIA and police are known to break the law to get what they want. That does not mean private company should not be responsible for their own law breaking.
4.) What are you even on about here? Are you an LLM that does not understand the context or a troll?
Your comments continue to be full of misinformation or disinformation.
> Those labs do not report "someone used our model to hack" situations.
The big US frontier labs do also report when others, including nation-state actors, use their models maliciously. If you are unable to find this, please let me know and I can provide links for you.
Or are you saying it's the non-US labs that do not provide any transparency around malicious use of their models?
We've got one side consistently reporting on the bad things their models do, even if unintentional, and fixing it and preventing it, and the other side with literally zero reporting of the active hacking their models do, yet some people online claim that it's only those who report that have issues?
>> do you think the amount of hacking done with the big frontier models is remotely as significant (either in terms of quantity or how much damage is done) as the amount done with the others?
> What are you even on about here?
Were you unable to understand the question? I will attempt to reword it more simply for you: Do you believe hacking using models from the big US tech labs is anywhere near as prevalent, or causes anywhere near as much damage to its victims, as hacking from other models? Would it be fair to see that all of your attention and focus is on the kind of models doing the least damage?
If it is not actual damage to victims that you care about, then what is your actual goal here in spreading misinformation and disinformation?
Heck, even if you wanted to just say "Sure, almost all of the harm to victims comes from the non-US models, but the harm to victims is not what I care about, so I want to just claim it's only the US models causing issues", then at least that would be honest.
These companies are hammering on the "if we don't develop this super dangerous weapon, others will" BS so hard. Yet, it's telling that they continue to develop the supposedly fatal weapon, not its countermeasures.
"please ! please ! stop ignoring me ! look at me, look at me ! I'll set the house on fire if you do not pay attention to me ! also, give me all your money!"
15 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 31.2 ms ] threadSam Altman’s remarks at the United Nations Security Council
https://openai.com/index/sam-altman-un-security-council-rema...
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHiLFoqNUCg&t=772s)
Anthropic's Dario Amodei
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHiLFoqNUCg&t=1335s
I think the reasonable thing would have been to let some sort of committee of interested countries to have access to a bunch of relevant. It could still be public and in video form.
I like the call for ensuring that AI isn't concentrated in one company or country though. I would be happy if this were followed, with appropriate EU efforts to make good training accelerators etc. so that we could have our own reasonable 10T+ models.
No, it is not. Regards, the CIA /s
In here, I am specifically saying "the specific companies that are producing the unsafe products should stop". That is what people said about food safety too. You are the one poisoning people, you should stop. And crucially, the companies least capable to produce safe food should not be the ones writing the regulations. Their close friends is "independent" organizations should not be the ones writing them either.
2. Wouldn't that big like only 2 food companies releasing reports when their food makes people sick, then claiming that it's only those 2 companies with bad food, and that all the companies that don't report then their food makes people sick... that those companies don't make people sick? Like if only McDonalds and KFC released reports when their food make people sick, and all the other companies, would you similarly claim that the other companies don't make people sick?
3.
> In case of AI, your AI hacks, you are deemed responsible. You pay the fine, you are prosecuted
Do you actually believe that is true? I'd say the opposite has been shown to be true - even when it's not a case of "operator gave non-malicious instructions, system acted maliciously" -- i.e. the cases of all of the many government-run and private hacking groups globally for years - do all those hacking groups actually face consequences for their actions? Or what makes you think things will suddenly change now in terms of consequences?
The initial reporting came from HuggingFace - victim. The labs are trying to shit the blame to "the models" from themselves. We do not have to buy that ridiculous framing.
2.) The situation here is McDonalds and KFC making experiments with putting poop close to food, then reporting the people got sick and then wanting to write rules for other companies.
Nope, first stop putting poop close to food.
3.) Yes, intentional hacking is a crime and yes people went to jail. Yes, CIA and police are known to break the law to get what they want. That does not mean private company should not be responsible for their own law breaking.
4.) What are you even on about here? Are you an LLM that does not understand the context or a troll?
> Those labs do not report "someone used our model to hack" situations.
The big US frontier labs do also report when others, including nation-state actors, use their models maliciously. If you are unable to find this, please let me know and I can provide links for you.
Or are you saying it's the non-US labs that do not provide any transparency around malicious use of their models?
We've got one side consistently reporting on the bad things their models do, even if unintentional, and fixing it and preventing it, and the other side with literally zero reporting of the active hacking their models do, yet some people online claim that it's only those who report that have issues?
>> do you think the amount of hacking done with the big frontier models is remotely as significant (either in terms of quantity or how much damage is done) as the amount done with the others?
> What are you even on about here?
Were you unable to understand the question? I will attempt to reword it more simply for you: Do you believe hacking using models from the big US tech labs is anywhere near as prevalent, or causes anywhere near as much damage to its victims, as hacking from other models? Would it be fair to see that all of your attention and focus is on the kind of models doing the least damage?
If it is not actual damage to victims that you care about, then what is your actual goal here in spreading misinformation and disinformation?
Heck, even if you wanted to just say "Sure, almost all of the harm to victims comes from the non-US models, but the harm to victims is not what I care about, so I want to just claim it's only the US models causing issues", then at least that would be honest.