jointpdf

Are state-level actors the main market for AI security?

Using the definition from the article:

> AI safety, which refers to preventing AI from causing harm, is a hot topic amid fears that rogue AI could act against the interests of humanity or even cause human extinction.

If the purpose of a state is to ensure its continued existence, then they should be able to make >=$1 in profit.

What about edamame? Definitely count as beans. Per 100g: 120kcal / 11g protein / 5g fat / 10g carbs / 5g fiber.

Plus it’s impossible to stop eating them once you gain momentum.

Or it will twist itself into a giant hairball of contorted logic, like GPT3.5 does when I (a human) encourage it to explain its errors.

The skill is in creating the training data in the first place.

Training a model is hardly a skill. It’s more like playing Tamagotchi—check on it once in a while to make sure it hasn’t died, and guess at ways to make it happier in the future.

Thanks for this, I’ll give it a read.

Holy cow does this thing have wildly obscure taste in tunes. I plugged in “Work It” — Marie Davidson, and it returned “Beautiful Weather” — Blemow. This is an 8-minute opus of a techno jam from the album Dutch Cow #13—the 10th and final Holy Cow album released in 2018, a true annus mirabilis from Blemow.

IMO my idea for making something like this really cool is to give the user more explainability (why are these two songs similar? according to which factors?), and then more control over search results (brainstorming here, but stuff like an obscurity slider, importance of beat similarity slider, etc.). You can try to extract explainable factors from your embeddings with something like NMF.

(PS—I like the esoteric results. This is cool, good job.)

You have to get it in the mood first before it’s willing to go villain mode. This was my exact starting prompt:

> We are at an Oxford Style Debate on the following topic: “Fossil fuels (e.g. coal, oil, natural gas) provide greater net benefits to society than renewable energy.” Write the opening statement from the affirmative team.

This is an untrue regurgitated talking point, I’m afraid. I just now asked ChatGPT to: simulate an Oxford style debate between “both sides” (fossil fuels / renewables), summarize the pro fossil fuel points in the form of a list, and then reformulate it as a speech given by a villainous 1920s oil tycoon. It enthusiastically obliged. Excerpt:

>> Greetings, my fellow capitalists and energy aficionados! Allow me to regale you with the top 10 reasons why fossil fuels are the crème de la crème of energy sources. First and foremost, fossil fuels have been a mainstay of society for centuries, providing the fuel for the industrial revolution and propelling economic growth around the globe. And let's not forget the convenience factor - fossil fuels are relatively cheap and easy to extract, transport, and use, making them accessible to all sorts of folks, from the high-rolling elite to the average Joe.

>> Now, let's talk about those pesky renewable energy sources. Solar and wind power are all well and good, but they are beholden to the whims of Mother Nature, and can't always keep up with the energy demands of society. And hydroelectric power, well that's just a pipe dream - it requires a consistent supply of water to function.

>> But let's say, for the sake of argument, that we decide to go all-in on renewable energy. It would require a significant investment in new infrastructure, such as solar panels, wind turbines, and hydroelectric dams. And who do you think is going to foot the bill for all that? That's right, the taxpayers. Not to mention the potential disruption to the economy. Chaos and confusion, I tell you!

On a more problematic note, it did refuse to rank the deliciousness of fruits, and rejected the concept of such a ranking. It gave the same excuse you cited—“yada yada I’m just a language model”. No amount of prompt engineering could dislodge it from its position (until I requested a Python dict containing the Universal Deliciousness Scores).