> We've seen last week with the OpenAI hacking (by mistake) Hugging Face debacle.

If the biggest danger of LLMs is that they can hack traditional systems, there is no significant threat to humanity posed by releasing them in open-weight form. Security doesn't become less of a problem by making hacking even more criminal. That's what's an unsafe mindset looks like.

▲

jackdeansmith 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>If the biggest danger of LLMs is that they can hack traditional systems

This is doing a lot of lifting. If the biggest danger of LLMs is they could uplift bioweapon development, the situation is different. If the biggest danger of LLMs is they reach capabilities allowing for recursive self improvement, the situation is very different still.

▲

ACCount37 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is the "baby's first AI risk" tier of AI danger. There is no known upper limit to how powerful those systems get, and there might not be one.

Don't think "a smart guy". Think "project Manhattan and CIA put together, all in one server rack".

We're lucky to have "they can hack traditional systems" as an early warning shot. Clearly, it's wasted on many.

▲

credit_guy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok. What's your stance on gun ownership then? And by gun, I mean naval guns.

	▲	bigyabai 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My position is that anyone can own a cannon and shells, but you only get to fire it once before the feds step in. Giving a naval cannon to the average person does not threaten humanity any more than giving them a gun or an LLM does. None of them are a panacea for anything.