←back to thread

OpenAI delays launch of open-weight model

(twitter.com)
189 points martinald | 2 comments | 12 Jul 25 01:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.818s | source
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(10): >>44538785 #>>44538805 #>>44538808 #>>44538903 #>>44538929 #>>44539030 #>>44539924 #>>44540225 #>>44540905 #>>44542283 #
natrius ◴[12 Jul 25 02:30 UTC] No.44538808[source]▶
An LLM can trivially instruct someone to take medications with adverse interactions, steer a mental health crisis toward suicide, or make a compelling case that a particular ethnic group is the cause of your society's biggest problem so they should be eliminated. Words can't kill people, but words can definitely lead to deaths.

That's not even considering tool use!

replies(11): >>44538847 #>>44538877 #>>44538896 #>>44538914 #>>44539109 #>>44539685 #>>44539785 #>>44539805 #>>44540111 #>>44542360 #>>44542401 #
bongodongobob ◴[12 Jul 25 02:50 UTC] No.44538896[source]▶
Books can do this too.
replies(3): >>44538935 #>>44539649 #>>44540596 #
1. derektank ◴[12 Jul 25 05:50 UTC] No.44539649[source]▶
Major book publishers have sensitivity readers that evaluate whether or not a book can be "safely" published nowadays. And even historically there have always been at least a few things publishers would refuse to print.
replies(1): >>44539790 #
2. selfhoster11 ◴[12 Jul 25 06:22 UTC] No.44539790[source]▶
All it means is that the Overton window on "should we censor speech" has shifted in the direction of less freedom.