←back to thread

OpenAI delays launch of open-weight model

(twitter.com)
159 points martinald | 7 comments | 12 Jul 25 01:07 UTC | HN request time: 1.559s | source | bottom
Show context
ryao ◴[12 Jul 25 02:18 UTC] No.44538755[source]▶
Am I the only one who thinks mention of “safety tests” for LLMs is a marketing scheme? Cars, planes and elevators have safety tests. LLMs don’t. Nobody is going to die if a LLM gives an output that its creators do not like, yet when they say “safety tests”, they mean that they are checking to what extent the LLM will say things they do not like.
replies(9): >>44538785 #>>44538805 #>>44538808 #>>44538903 #>>44538929 #>>44539030 #>>44539924 #>>44540225 #>>44540905 #
1. eviks ◴[12 Jul 25 02:26 UTC] No.44538785[source]▶
Why is your definition of safety so limited? Death isn't the only type of harm...
replies(1): >>44538796 #
2. ryao ◴[12 Jul 25 02:28 UTC] No.44538796[source]▶
There are other forms of safety, but whether a digital parrot says something that people do not like is not a form of safety. They are abusing the term safety for marketing purposes.
replies(1): >>44538885 #
3. eviks ◴[12 Jul 25 02:47 UTC] No.44538885[source]▶
You're abusing the terms by picking either the overly limited ("death") or overly expansive ("not like") definitions to fit your conclusion. Unless you reject the fact that harm can come from words/images, a parrot can parrot harmful words/images, so be unsafe.
replies(2): >>44538891 #>>44539234 #
4. ryao ◴[12 Jul 25 02:49 UTC] No.44538891{3}[source]▶
The maxim “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me” comes to mind here. That said, I think this misses the point that the LLM is not a gatekeeper to any of this.
replies(2): >>44538911 #>>44539028 #
5. eviks ◴[12 Jul 25 02:53 UTC] No.44538911{4}[source]▶
Don't let your mind potential be limited by such primitive slogans!
6. jiggawatts ◴[12 Jul 25 03:23 UTC] No.44539028{4}[source]▶
I find it particularly irritating that the models are so overly puritan that they refuse to translate subtitles because they mention violence.
7. jazzyjackson ◴[12 Jul 25 04:11 UTC] No.44539234{3}[source]▶
it's like complaining about bad words in the dictionary

the bot has no agency, the bot isn't doing anything, people talk to themselves, augmenting their chain of thought with an automated process. If the automated process is acting in an undesirable manner, the human that started the process can close the tab.

Which part of this is dangerous or harmful?