So what's dangerous about any of that?
Consider a lonely teenager whose internet friend one day stops replying so they go and make their own friend, and then maybe after "taking advice" from this friend goes to school with a gun?
Maybe not terribly likely events, but I think a certain element of risk must be managed (maybe limit session durations so you can't fool yourself into thinking its for real as easily).
Roher however, has pretty clear views that he won't manage any risk, because what he's doing is art and then there's no place for safety.
So we should shut down the internet in general, because people ought to go outside instead too?
So ISPs should force everyone who hosts a website to insert monitoring software, to prevent abuse like that. And if they refuse, they can cancel service.
That's a pretty good idea tbh.
My argument was about one specific service not being perfectly free of risk, and so there where clear boundaries inherent in the argument. You dismiss these boundaries and then act surprised the resulting argument is silly.
This makes me wonder what your stance is on boxes, as they too depend on imposing boundaries.
But a person could give such "advice" too. Should we shut down text chat services that let humans talk to each other too?
The fear is not that the chat bot will come to life, but rather than the text content it's been trained upon could potentially regurgitate back dangerous responses.
I don't think it's too far of a leap to see someone taking the output from the bot too literally and possibly creating a negative situation.
Who gets to decide what's "dangerous"? Why? Over and over in human history, we've seen speech restrictions ostensibly to protect the public used to impose orthodoxy and delay progress. Even if some utterance might be acutely dangerous, the risk of restrictions being abused to cement power is too great to tolerate them.
I reject AI safety rules for the same reason I reject restrictions on human speech. There is no such thing as a dangerous book or a dangerous ML model. If such a thing is dangerous, it's a danger only to those who have done wrong.
ML models that discriminate against women and black people seem self evidently dangerous to me; who has done wrong here?
Also ML models that are inadequately designed and tested and then mooted as useful for medical applications seem dangerous to - like drugs that aren't tested before being given to infants.
I just don't understand your reasoning about this - if books can't be dangerous then why are they so powerful? If ML models can't be dangerous then how can they have utility?
> Something can only have utility if it's dangerous.
smh
> ML models that discriminate against women and black people seem self evidently dangerous to me; who has done wrong here?
> Also ML models that are inadequately designed and tested and then mooted as useful for medical applications seem dangerous to - like drugs that aren't tested before being given to infants.
Whoever decided to take the results of that model and directly translate what it says into actions without any further thought.
More mundanely, romance scams are already a major issue (https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-you-need-know-abo...), and this bot would make them much easier to perform if distributed widely.