This view, while understandable, I believe is misaligned.
All these companies care about is making money without getting sued for teaching people on the internet how to make pipe bombs or hallucinating medical advice that makes them sick.
All these companies care about is making money without getting sued for teaching people on the internet how to make pipe bombs or hallucinating medical advice that makes them sick.
AI "safety" is grounded in an impulse to control other people, and to declare oneself the moral superior to the rest of the human cattle. It has very little to do with actual safety.
I vehemently disagree with Eliezer's safety stance, but at least it's a REAL safety stance, unlike that taken by Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, et. al. Hell, even the batshit crazy neo-luddite stance of nuking the datacenters and blowing up the GPU fabs is a better stance on AI safety than this corporate patronizing bullshit.
Nobody there cares about reducing the risk of grey goo. They just want to make sure you know daddy's in charge, and he knows best.
If your LLM hallucinates your diagnosis at a rate of 20%, and your doctor misdiagnoses you at a rate of 25% (I don't recall the real numbers, but they are on the order of this), who is the real danger, here?
Preventable medical errors, including misdiagnosis, murders nearly a quarter million Americans per year, and these "safety" enthusiasts are out here concern-trolling about the double bad evil LLMs possibly giving you bad medical advice? Really?
Deeper pockets and the like.
And if your LLM hallucinates your diagnosis at a rate of 95%, and your doctor misdiagnoses you at a rate of 25%, then who is the real danger, here?