This idea of software threatening the user with consequences is totally wild and dystopian. Fellow developers, what kind of world have be built? This is insanity. Imagine if my hammer told me, "Hey, you shouldn't use me on screws--only nails. Do it again and I'll self-destruct!" WTF people, stop making this kind of software!
This idea of software built on top of reverse-engineered data threatening the user with consequences is what's really even wild and dystopian.
In fact probably every single piece of commercial software you use had you sign a contract saying you wouldn’t do it
But they don't threaten their users or have an "N strikes and you're out" policy. I take those safety caps off of all the chemicals in my garage because I'm a grown-ass adult and those caps are a pain in the butt. I would not expect the manufacturer of a solvent to show up at my house lecturing me about safety and threatening to ban me from buying his products.
It's an obvious corollary of good things (like product liability). Virtually everyone I've heard complain about these safety rails was up to antisocial (at best) stuff. I've never heard a sympathetic use-case. It's objectively good that companies can be held responsible for misuse of their products and that they are therefore incentivized to mitigate misuse.
"My inability continuously attack product guardrails to enable my super esoteric (and probably antisocial) use-case is dystopian" is just... not a compelling argument.
Did this happen?
I just tested this query in Grok, Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT and 0% of them admonished me or refused to return an answer.
Just like every single conversation I've ever had on this topic, you have to make up examples that aren't even true. Why don't you just share what you were doing that you feel you were unfairly prevented from?
(I have an inkling why you won't do that...)
> Replace "suicide" with whatever the "AI Safety" obsession word is today
I don't know what those queries are, but original-OP made one and got a "strike", which is what spawned this thread.
OP gave an example of reverse engineering, something that to the LLM looks identical to just hacking. I am totally fine if the incredibly tiny little fraction of people who want to reverse engineer their own systems can't use LLMs to do it, and in exchange top LLMs aren't helpful for the hordes of actual malicious actors who would love a superintelligence to aid their crimes.
No-brainer tradeoff, just like 100% of examples I've ever heard.
I want a default that has people empowered, rather than something where it's just another performative smokescreen caused by overzealous product liability. I'll thank you and your kind for needing to distractedly tap the "Agree" button on my car's infotainment every time I start it to confirm that I will pay attention to the road.
> I'll thank you and your kind for needing to distractedly tap the "Agree" button on my car's infotainment every time I start it to confirm that I will pay attention to the road.
Does that actually mitigate antisocial usecases? No? Then it's not what I'm talking about :)
Of course if you wanted to you could just share specifically what totally-reasonable LLM use-case you have in mind that's neutered by this "fascist mentality" instead of dreaming up unrelated instances.
It's a very different abstraction layer, in the same way as individual cells vs the entity that is you. The entity that comes together from all those "other people in my community" and its priorities are different to the individual desires.
> Does that actually mitigate antisocial usecases? No? Then it's not what I'm talking about :)
Maybe it does? Maybe someone is alive on the road today because they read the message and changed their behaviour. I'm giving an example of something where this liability mindset has created a world where manufacturers are no longer prioritising the desires of their users in order to appease a sense of harm-reduction. And you weren't limiting it to LLMs you were applying it to all sorts of tools.
I think that "reverse engineering" as the OP was talking about is one of those things where maybe 1/10000 uses could actually be harmful. This is not even a high-risk request such as to produce a weapon of some kind where maybe your "antisocial usecases" could be applied.
You can still use an IDE (hammer) to reverse engineer anything you want.
Is the distinction between human labor/actions and a program executing hard to grasp?
Moral is a human thing, not an absolute thing, so of course it's different if there is a single human involved and a tool, and a human with a relationship to other humans.
It's worse to ask someone else to break a window with a hammer for me, but the window still got broken, and the person whose window it was is still sad/out of money/etc.
The thought experiment was that if you were doing illegal things with an AI, you would not feel bad, but if you found out that the AI was a person, you would feel bad. That is very strange to me, more a feeling of guilt/shame.