Of course there is more to be learned by exposing the entire world to your dangerous creation, that doesn't justify doing it. I'm sure we could learn a ton about infectious diseases by designing new ones and unleashing them on the world, but there are very good reasons why we don't.

Most of the benefits could have been gained from a network isolated from the internet. OAI could have deployed servers to exploit and methods for inter-agent communication on such a network easily. They could have even worked with partners to deploy cloned versions of their infrastructure in this sand-boxed environment.

The only problems with an isolated network approach are: it takes some amount of effort, and it doesn't create another "AI apocalypse" news cycle.

▲

pixl97 an hour ago | parent [-]

>by exposing the entire world to your dangerous creation, that doesn't justify doing it

Then you're on the side of AI saftey that is telling everyone to shut down the LLMs now and stop further development on them, right?

If you're not your position is hypocritical or ignorant. There is no safe LLM. There is no way to exhaustively prove an LLM is safe. These are unsolved problems in AI safety, and at any moment the next jailbreak prompt could have your well behaved model wrecking havoc on the open internet, because that's where people want to use them.

▲

eaglelamp 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'm not.

As it stands LLMs are not intelligent, they have no agency, they only produce output in response to input. Ultimately this input comes from a human who is an intelligent agent and should be held responsible for the consequences.

Humanity has created and tamed many dangerous tools. Creating a fantasy world where LLMs are super intelligent and beyond the control of any mere mortal isn't going to help us build the norms that minimize their harms.

	▲	lukeschlather 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What does it mean to be held responsible for the consequences? OpenAI helped remediate the damage done by the model and took steps to make sure it wouldn't happen again. In what way were they not responsible? Nobody said they were superintelligent, no one said they were uncontrollable. The point is you can't tell how to control them without putting them in situations where they can act independently and harm may result. "only produce output in response to input" is not a useful framing at all, it doesn't say what the result should be when models produce harmful output, and how to constrain them so they don't produce harmful output. It also doesn't help you calibrate what categories of harmful output are acceptable or unacceptable, and what kinds of responsibilities you have as an operator to prevent harmful output, and when it's sufficient to work toward remediation.