The whole point is to check the behavior of the LLM, how do you propose they run tests on that if each failed run risks sending them to prison?

Of course they still have to be careful with their runs.

▲

cassianoleal a day ago | parent [-]

> how do you propose they run tests on that if each failed run risks sending them to prison?

If you're testing a gun, you don't point it at random people on the street and threaten them. You go to a shooting range.

▲

pingou a day ago | parent [-]

Is there any indication that they didn't go to the shooting range first?

▲

cassianoleal a day ago | parent [-]

Do you think once they finished testing the gun at the range, they should go out on the streets threatening the public?

▲

pingou a day ago | parent [-]

No, but what are you implying? That they should never use the model because it cannot be proven 100% safe?

I agree that it is their responsibility if the model caused damage, they should have had better safeguards, but we do know it will never be 100% safe. It is their duty to minimize the risk. I guess we disagree about whereas this thing is equivalent to shooting people in the face, and to me it looks more like this is just a step above the shooting range, with some preliminary safety work having been done before.

	▲	cassianoleal a day ago \| parent [-]
		Maybe they shouldn't run tests that are not safe and threaten the public? I agree that in this specific case it doesn't seem too terrible but what happens when this ends up causing someone vulnerable to be harassed and commit self-harm? Also note that I never said "shooting people in the face". I only alluded to threatening with the gun. Threatening can in some cases be as bad as actually pulling the trigger. That's how "atomic diplomacy" works.