They say the second thing repeatedly and emphatically. You may not be aware of it because, when they do, critics make fun of them for believing a computer program could be so dangerous that the authors need to put controls on how it may be steered.

▲

Avicebron an hour ago | parent [-]

That's not why critics make fun of them. It's because their answer to "oh no we're accidentally creating the godhead. Someone please, give us power, your money, and praise, it's the only thing we can do."

It's vile hypocrisy. If they want to be priests, strip them of everything and they can live and work out of a concrete box in a mid-western cornfield. Why the material distraction if they are so religiously pure.

I know these people and I can tell you they aren't close to as smart as they think they are. Do you remember Yudowsky's "math petss"?

	▲	simoncion 16 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This critic also makes fun of them because they go on and on and on about how vitally important it is to produce a safe tool that won't do harm, when their core products frequently consider attacker-controlled instructions to be its system instructions or its user's instructions, and are known to confuse their own internal chatter as instructions from their user. Reliably differentiating between trusted, tainted, and untrusted data and ensuring that you don't mix the latter two groups in with the former is something we've known to do for nearly a half-century. Hell, even the youngest plausible programmer at the LLM companies is all but certain to be aware of SQL injections. And yet, despite their claims about being so serious about safety, they show zero interest in following long-proven software safety practice and rearchitecting their software to make it impossible to mix system, user, and attacker-controlled data. [0] [0] One might argue that the fundamental nature of LLM-based systems makes this impossible. If that were true, then it would mean that these systems are impossible to make safe... the only safety option available would be to establish comprehensive blacklists, which is simply infeasible.
	▲	SpicyLemonZest 21 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sorry, I don't understand this comment. Has Sam Altman ever said that you must praise him, or that he wants to be a priest, or that he's "religiously pure"? Unless I'm missing something, it seems like you're shadowboxing against a stereotype you've invented rather than the actual positions of AI research labs.