Before suggesting a new regulation regime for AI models, you must first show that it doesn’t ban obviously beneficial technologies (e.g. printing press, GPT 3.5, nuclear energy).
I was trying to communicate that I already share the concern around excess strictness. So, I don’t understand why this (apparently condescendingly phrased) point is being repeated back to me again. The point of this post is to explore the pros and cons of this eval, and see if there are relaxations which capture most of the pros without most of the cons.
From the original comment:
How is this a relevant metric for safety at all?
If you don’t know what I think the pros are, maybe try asking more specific questions about more specific claims I make in the post?
FWIW its fairly obvious to me that these final two technologies have significant downsides, and so calling them obviously beneficial feels like a stretch.
Do you have an actual choice to ban either technology if you want to remain sovereign? Wealthy countries without their own nuclear weapons are generally shielded by the arsenals of ones that do. If you are not using at least gpt 3.5 welcome to the unemployment line in a foreseeable timespan.
Absolutely. I will go with a counterfactual and assume we don’t mean literally 3.5 but a model using the same architecture, level of compute, and scale but has been cleaned up and fine tuned for productive tasks.
I was trying to communicate that I already share the concern around excess strictness. So, I don’t understand why this (apparently condescendingly phrased) point is being repeated back to me again. The point of this post is to explore the pros and cons of this eval, and see if there are relaxations which capture most of the pros without most of the cons.
From the original comment:
If you don’t know what I think the pros are, maybe try asking more specific questions about more specific claims I make in the post?
FWIW its fairly obvious to me that these final two technologies have significant downsides, and so calling them obviously beneficial feels like a stretch.
Do you have an actual choice to ban either technology if you want to remain sovereign? Wealthy countries without their own nuclear weapons are generally shielded by the arsenals of ones that do. If you are not using at least gpt 3.5 welcome to the unemployment line in a foreseeable timespan.
Ditto for countries that use and expand on got 3.5
Absolutely. I will go with a counterfactual and assume we don’t mean literally 3.5 but a model using the same architecture, level of compute, and scale but has been cleaned up and fine tuned for productive tasks.