Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

My issue with AI safety is that it's an overloaded term. It could mean anything from an llm giving you instructions on how to make an atomic bomb to writing spicy jokes if you prompt it to do so. it's not clear which safety these regulatory agencies would be solving for.

But I'm worried this will be used to shape acceptable discourse as people are increasingly using LLMs as a kind of database of knowledge. It is telling that the largest players are eager to comply which suggests that they feel they're in the club and the regulations will effectively be a moat.

View on HN

> My issue with AI safety is that it's an overloaded term. It could mean anything from an llm giving you instructions on how to make an atomic bomb to writing spicy jokes if you prompt it to do so. it's not clear which safety these regulatory agencies would be solving for.

I think if you look at the background of the people leading evaluations at the US AISI [1], as well as the existing work on evaluations by the UK AISI [2] and METR [3], you will notice that it's much more the former than the latter.

[1]: https://www.nist.gov/people/paul-christiano [2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-safety-institu... [3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11671

Anyone who really wants to make an atomic bomb already knows how to make an atomic bomb. The limitations are in access to raw materials and ability to do large scale enrichment.

I agree. I’m really more concerned about bioweapons, for which it’s generally understood (in security studies) that access to technical expertise is the limiting factor for terrorists. See Al Qaeda’s attempts to develop bio weapons in 2001.

Coming soon (I’m certain) is the ability for consumer-accessible LLMs and their ilk to analyze millions upon millions of pages of documents. That poses what Pentagon types no doubt perceive as a national security risk.

"Hey LLM, take this press release and analyze it for half truths and misdirections about why we should go to war again with X."

Very powerful stuff in the hands of the public

Which makes me worry about "safe" from which perspective? Does it make government officials safe from second-guessing? That's certainly against the public good, but there are many ideologies that begin with the premise that what's good for the official government "narrative" is good for the public.

Because returning to the user what is requested is considered an 'attack' I forsee an endless list of 'vulnerabilities' until the model is lobotomized to the point of uselessness.

Can somebody put together a law suit where LLM regulations can be argued as a first amendment violation? The powers that be are trying to indirectly regulate speech here

Currently? I don't think so. There are no binding US regulations at all. These companies are voluntarily working with NIST (and why not, free labour. Also the potential to influence any future regulations).

In the future... I suppose it depends on what regulations they pass.

This. Knowledge can't be made illegal. Neither can speech. People have to grasp that tyranny is not an aberration of defective minds but a natural impulse of highly intelligent people. It's strategy to maximize their power, prosperity and security at the expense of every other value and every other person. Good for them while they live and bad for everyone else at every other time frame.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com