Technology

parent

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

FWIW I work in the field and agree with this. LLMs in the current state are not so dangerous they can't be released to public. Generative image and video models are a much bigger threat, but that was largely something which came from open source.

If we really want to pearl clutch, it is NVIDIA which is really propping open this Pandora's box in terms of putting the capability in irresponsible hands

parent

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Are the cards really powerful enough for so much fuss?

parent

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago*

Definitely. An A100 system is around $10k which is expensive, but definitely in reach, and you need two of them to run a 70B parameter model. Possibly one if you are clever about it.

And you can still do plenty of damage with a $1000 consumer grade GPU. Most deepfake videos are trained on these platforms.

parent

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Okay, so let's do a thought experiment, and take off all the safeguards.

Oops, you made:

a bomb design generator
an involuntary pornography generator
a CP generator

Saying "don't misuse it" isn't enough to stop people misusing it

And that's just with chatgpt - AI isn't just a question and answer machine - I suggest you read about "the paperclip maximiser" as a very good example of how misalignment of general purpose AI can go horribly wrong

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

None of that is complicated.

parent

[+] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

I don't think AI, especially chat bots, will be more useful than a youtuber. It's not particularly easy to make powerful explosives, and gun powder is kind of trash for bombs. I'd imagine chatgpt would blow up more curious kids than aid them lol

parent

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

The last 2 already exist it's called stable diffusion. And for awhile Bing did it too.

parent

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I mean half that is deviant art and you can look up how to make explosives on youtube chem channels or in books. It's not hard to rig up a custom detonator if you can get the energetics.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

What are we going to do with these Universities, just teaching anyone how to be a chemical engineer!!?

parent

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

Jesus some of you guys completely miss the point.

parent

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

ChatGPT was very far from the first publically available generative AI. It didn't even do images at first.

Also, there are plenty of YouTube channels which show you how to make all sorts of extremely dangerous explosives already.

parent

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 years ago

But the concern isn't which was the first generative ai - their "idea" was that AIs - of all types, including generalised - should just be released as-is, with no further safeguards.

That doesn't consider that OpenAI doesn't only develop text generation AIs. Generalised AI can do horrifying things, even just by accidental misconfiguration (see the paperclip optimiser example).

But even a GANN like chatGPT can be coerced to generate non-text data with the right prompting.

Even in that example, one can't just dig up those sorts of videos without, at minimum, leaving a trail. But an unresticted pretrained model can be distributed and run locally, and used without trace to generate any content whatsoever that it's capable of generating.

And with a generalised AI, the only constraint to the prompt "kill everybody except me" becomes available compute.