undefined

points

[-]

If you're actually worried then do the right thing and don't make the model, or do make the model and admit you are doing it to make money.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it by making the (supposedly) world ending model but also getting on a moral high horse.

It's the hypocrisy and obvious mendacity that's obnoxious to me.

Having said that, OpenAI is just as bad (probably worse) and they're friendly with the admin, so this isn't really a case of any kind of justice unfortunately

by solenoid09379 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

False dichotomy. You can make a safe, aligned model that blocks dangerous actions, even at the expense of overblocking benign ones.

You can release the powerful model to companies that will use it to fix instead of break.

by ifwinterco8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Once a technology exists it will be used for good and for ill, you can't create it and put it in a box forever.

If you really think a technology could be dangerous then the only morally correct thing to do is not help to create it.

They're not doing that, so either they're lying about it being dangerous, or they're lying about the fact they care (maybe a bit of both)

by solenoid09377 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This is just a terrible view.

Nuclear can be used for great ill or great good. Today, most actual use is for great good.

By your logic we should have stopped at the discovery of fire.