For Chat-Based AI, We Are All Once Again Tech Companies’ Guinea Pigs

I can't help but wonder who's pushing this "AI safety" narrative, and why.

If you don't want it, don't sign up for it, or opt in. Refrain from using it. Very simple.

I'm less sympathetic to this concern. Not totally dismissive. I think some of the restrictions are fair for a company running a business. If you want to sell to other companies, make sure your bots don't use racial slurs, for example. But I don't think there's an ethical issue.

As far as I can tell, this is the gist of the article, which I find boring. When Google started, its main product was still being actively researched - heck, it was the result of an algorithm from two grad students. You definitely had and still have made-up and biased results there too. Yet it was an incredibly useful technology.

Effectively, we've implemented the ship's computer from Star Trek TNG. While there's enough enthusiasm that average people are playing with ChatGPT, it seems that the "glass half empty" attitude is far outweighing the perspective that we've achieved something that was once complete fantasy in our lifetimes. Nobody I know, including those with greater ML/AI knowledge than mine, is in as much awe as I am. Current generation LLMs are something we're already taking for granted as a cool toy, or we're concluding it's crap because it doesn't have a God-like grasp on facts, or we're waiting for it to become Skynet.

Given the overall response we're having to this technology, I can't help but conclude that society is overdue for being put in its place, and perhaps it even needs to be knocked down a peg. The real problem with AI may not be so much the technology itself but that we're not deserving or truly ready for it.

This is what concerns me, if this thing doesn't turn out to be great for society, it will still be pushed down peoples throats because a ROI needs to be made, a lot of money is at stake and so here we are.

Hopefully it goes ok.

https://openai.com/blog/planning-for-agi-and-beyond/

Look at the way we regulate harmful chemicals. After studies find that chemicals found in consumer products are harmful, manufacturers spend several years redesigning their products to avoid them. After manufacturers have voluntarily redesigned their products, the chemicals are banned. The manufacturers often replace the harmful chemicals with structurally similar chemicals that have not yet been shown to be harmful. When those similar chemicals are shown to be harmful, the cycle repeats. This is the history of phthalates, which are used to soften PVC plastic. The CPSC first considered banning one phthalate (DEHP) in children's toys the 1980s. Before that happened, all large manufacturers replaced it by another phthalate (DINP), which also turned out to be harmful. Both DEHP and DINP were finally banned by congressional action in 2008.

Technology is not a chemical, but anything that people will be spending significant time interacting with is likely to have some effect on their wellbeing, potentially small but potentially large, potentially positive but potentially negative. The type of harms these chatbots might cause are difficult to predict in advance. It could take a couple years to determine whether the current generation of chatbots are actually a net positive or negative for society. In that time, they may become too entrenched for us to do anything if they do turn out to be harmful. When Facebook first came out, I doubt many people foresaw the negative impact that it could have on teenagers. Today, many studies show that social media use has a negative impact on kids' wellbeing, but there is no going back to a pre-social media world.

Prospectively testing and regulating tech in the same way we regulate pharma seems insane. OTOH, we do want to make sure that world-changing tech actually changes the world for the better, and the only obvious way to do this is through some kind of regulation. Although regulation will undoubtedly slow growth, many of us would be happy to sacrifice some growth for improved wellbeing. At this point, everyone has seen the productivity-pay gap plot showing that most of the improvement in US productivity since 1979 has not translated into increases in real wages. Our current "growth at almost any cost" strategy benefits corporations much more than it benefits the average person.

Even the lofty towers of Finance and their close companions Legal, are feeling the hot breath of AI creatures it seems. They are right to be alarmed, for it is within their own ranks that the most unexpected and treacherous uses of this tech will occur.

Sure, some salesman in San Francisco claims that he can sell ads to a Billion South Asians, but "we" all know that it is in the inches of legal documents, and public fiduciary statements, that things will get really messy, really quickly.

Bye bye venture capitalist club -- you were raging tigers and you will tear yourselves into bloody bits in front of everyone.

Socialize the research and the risk, privatize the profit and future.

The future is behind schedule.

The "first mover advantage" and such is a reality created by consumer/customer behavior, not by "tech" companies using the world as a pool of beta testers.