From reading the post, I think it's more likely that anti-jailbreaking is going to become much more strict and prone to false-positives.

> We received the directive from the government today at 5:21pm (ET). The letter did not provide specific details of its national security concern. Our understanding is that the government believes it has become aware of a method of bypassing, or “jailbreaking” Fable 5. We reviewed a demonstration of this specific technique being used to identify a small number of previously known, minor vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities all appear relatively simple, and we have found that other publicly-available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass.

▲

hgoel 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But no matter how conservative they make the anti-jailbreaking, the risk doesn't go away. There are so many logic "holes" that are ambiguous and can blur the line between a jailbreak and legitimate use.

If every time a jailbreak is discovered, the model has to be turned off and jailbreak prevention updated, the effect will be the same regarding how willing users are to adopt it.

▲

stevarino 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Also this falls into the "right to bear arms" thing: if LLMs are limited legally, then illegal LLMs will be the superior choice. This is pretty much the plot of Cryptonomicon and Corey's take on I, Robot

	▲	Den_VR 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Except there’s a large hardware barrier to entry, which for now seems effective. Related note. Cryptography has been subject to export controls for years and manufacturers bend into pretzels to meet the laws, regulations, and policies.

▲

andai 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't get the emphasis on known vulnerabilities. The jailbreak already works on previously known exploits? That seems a bit weird.

▲

chatmasta 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Anti-jailbreaking and passport verified access to model families.