Positive users agree with the strategic backlash against AI safety efforts to ban open-weight models, while negative users criticize OpenAI and Anthropic for integrating what they see as a dangerous system configuration.
Based on 2 visible X reactions from 4 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
3.1) /goal is clearly a dangerous system configuration. I think it reflects poorly on @OpenAI and @AnthropicAI that they have integrated this into their deployments without extensive discussion of this fact.
@dhadfieldmenell Gotcha yea agreed
1) It was and remains an incredible unforced error that the AI Safety community leaned so heavily into attempts to ban open-source models (often in thinly veiled trojan horses). It was a bad move strategically and relied too heavily on speculative/Trojanunjustified reasoning.
2) It's important to remember that the OS community didn't respond by saying "yes, there are risks and we should accept them and move ASAP to mitigate them." The standard argument was that superhuman cyber capabilities were speculative/unrealistic.
@RyanGreenblatt From my recollection, a lot of people believed banning OS models would be necessary, proposed regulations that likely would ban open source models, and dismissed concerns that proposals would harm the open source ecosystem.
@dhadfieldmenell Did they lean heavily into attempts to ban open-weight models? I think some people did stuff in this direction or thought this was a good idea, but this seems like a big overstatement. I agree this doesn't make sense.
Positive users agree with the strategic backlash against AI safety efforts to ban open-weight models, while negative users criticize OpenAI and Anthropic for integrating what they see as a dangerous system configuration.
Based on 2 visible X reactions from 4 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.