upvote
The article presented facts and data. If that's a problem for you, that sounds more faith-based than whatever Anthropic is doing.
reply
which article? have not seen this one

---

maybe it's this Anthropic post on GLM?

https://www.anthropic.com/research/glm-5-3-and-the-spread-of...

> Governments should conduct safety testing on sufficiently capable AI models, including successors to GLM-5.3. Without high-quality evaluations from independent sources, the impact of these capabilities might not become fully clear to model developers until it is too late. As AI developers across the world build increasingly capable open-weight models, we hope they work to appropriately safeguard these capabilities and prevent misuse.

I for one do not think my government is up to the task of designing or implementing such a system

reply
It doesn't need to. It can use your cash to pay the people who are. Those in power like it more that way.
reply
You say that because the 'most' existing models have done is hack governments and companies. Can't you think of worse things a model could do; accidentally or by instruction?
reply
help people with suicide and school shootings like ChatGPT already has

OpenAi is alledged to have been monitoring these internally and not contacting authorities. Lawsuits have been filed, I see gross negligence without the gory details

I have for more concerns around human-chatbot maladies than I do around the cyber security stuff. For example, why hack grandma when you can get her to do something willingly through impersonation. How do we prove authenticity in a post truth world?

reply
deleted
reply