←back to thread

688 points crescit_eundo | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.463s | source
Show context
codeflo ◴[] No.42145710[source]
At this point, we have to assume anything that becomes a published benchmark is specifically targeted during training. That's not something specific to LLMs or OpenAI. Compiler companies have done the same thing for decades, specifically detecting common benchmark programs and inserting hand-crafted optimizations. Similarly, the shader compilers in GPU drivers have special cases for common games and benchmarks.
replies(3): >>42146244 #>>42146391 #>>42151266 #
darkerside ◴[] No.42146244[source]
VW got in a lot of trouble for this
replies(10): >>42146543 #>>42146550 #>>42146553 #>>42146556 #>>42146560 #>>42147093 #>>42147124 #>>42147353 #>>42147357 #>>42148300 #
sigmoid10 ◴[] No.42146560[source]
Apples and oranges. VW actually cheated on regulatory testing to bypass legal requirements. So to be comparable, the government would first need to pass laws where e.g. only compilers that pass a certain benchmark are allowed to be used for purchasable products and then the developers would need to manipulate behaviour during those benchmarks.
replies(3): >>42146749 #>>42147885 #>>42150309 #
0xFF0123 ◴[] No.42146749[source]
The only difference is the legality. From an integrity point of view it's basically the same
replies(7): >>42146884 #>>42146984 #>>42147072 #>>42147078 #>>42147443 #>>42147742 #>>42147978 #
Thorrez ◴[] No.42146884[source]
I think breaking a law is more unethical than not breaking a law.

Also, legality isn't the only difference in the VW case. With VW, they had a "good emissions" mode. They enabled the good emissions mode during the test, but disabled it during regular driving. It would have worked during regular driving, but they disabled it during regular driving. With compilers, there's no "good performance" mode that would work during regular usage that they're disabling during regular usage.

replies(4): >>42146959 #>>42147070 #>>42147439 #>>42147666 #
Lalabadie ◴[] No.42146959[source]
> I think breaking a law is more unethical than not breaking a law.

It sounds like a mismatch of definition, but I doubt you're ambivalent about a behavior right until the moment it becomes illegal, after which you think it unethical. Law is the codification and enforcement of a social contract, not the creation of it.

replies(3): >>42147314 #>>42147369 #>>42148090 #
Thorrez ◴[] No.42147314[source]
>I doubt you're ambivalent about a behavior right until the moment it becomes illegal, after which you think it unethical.

There are many cases where I think that. Examples:

* Underage drinking. If it's legal for someone to drink, I think it's in general ethical. If it's illegal, I think it's in general unethical.

* Tax avoidance strategies. If the IRS says a strategy is allowed, I think it's ethical. If the IRS says a strategy is not allowed, I think it's unethical.

* Right on red. If the government says right on red is allowed, I think it's ethical. If the government (e.g. NYC) says right on red is not allowed, I think it's unethical.

The VW case was emissions regulations. I think they have an ethical obligation to obey emissions regulations. In the absence of regulations, it's not an obvious ethical problem to prioritize fuel efficiency instead of emissions (that's I believe what VW was doing).

replies(3): >>42147570 #>>42148734 #>>42156023 #
chefandy ◴[] No.42147570[source]
Drinking and right turns are unethical if they’re negligent. They’re not unethical if they’re not negligent. The government is trying to reduce negligence by enacting preventative measures to stop ALL right turns and ALL drinking in certain contexts that are more likely to yield negligence, or where the negligence world be particularly harmful, but that doesn’t change whether or not the behavior itself is negligent.

You might consider disregarding the government’s preventative measures unethical, and doing those things might be the way someone disregards the governments protective guidelines, but that doesn’t make those actions unethical any more than governments explicitly legalizing something makes it ethical.

To use a clearer example, the ethicality of abortion— regardless of what you think of it— is not changed by its legal status. You might consider violating the law unethical, so breaking abortion laws would constitute the same ethical violation as underage drinking, but those laws don’t change the ethics of abortion itself. People who consider it unethical still consider it unethical where it’s legal, and those that consider it ethical still consider it ethical where it’s not legal.

replies(4): >>42147856 #>>42148191 #>>42148730 #>>42157977 #
1. adgjlsfhk1 ◴[] No.42147856[source]
the right on red example is interesting because in that case, the law changes how other drivers and pedestrians will behave in ways that make it pretty much always unsafe
replies(1): >>42148048 #
2. chefandy ◴[] No.42148048[source]
That just changes the parameters of negligence. On a country road in the middle of a bunch of farm land where you can see for miles, it doesn’t change a thing.