6 ms·
Sam and Dario are saying from the beginning that these things can be dangerous and people dismiss it as marketing. What would change your mind on this?
by arisAlexis 2mo ago
Sam and Dario are saying from the beginning that these things can be dangerous and people dismiss it as marketing. What would change your mind on this?
- fidotron 2mo agoDemonstration of personal responsibility and accountability? Or is that too much?
- throwuxiytayq 2mo agoI used to think people would wake the fuck up when AI starts killing people, these days I'm not so sure. Maybe if it caused an Instagram outage? Almost worked in Russia.
- gr_norm 2mo agoThey've been saying so from the beginning, and yet did not take the basic precaution of airgapping their off-the-leash model while it's been instructed to succeed at a hacking benchmark by any means necessary. So which is it? I _want_ to believe them, I do, but there's always these gaps between what they say and their actions on display that give me reason to think otherwise.
- arisAlexis 2mo agoThey said: AI is becoming dangerously autonomous and capable. Proof of today's breach. Crowd "hey why didn't you say so, c'mon it's marketing". Them "we said so".
- jlarocco 2mo agoI would have to laugh if AI's first autonomous achievement was accidentally zero-daying everything and crippling society.
- arisAlexis 2mo agowhy laugh? this is one of the most well known studied possibilities in the AI alignment field, maybe you are unaware of this field.
- cwnyth 2mo agoHe wouldn't be the first reckless CEO...
- mplappert 2mo ago“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” (or carelessness in this case)
- cryptoz 2mo agoFWIW, I used to love this phrase but over recent years have come to understand it is quite damaging. We live in a society where evil frequently hides behind a ‘stupid’ label, and people bring this quote up to defend or soften actions that are indeed done out of specific malicious intent.
- 12_throw_away 2mo agoRight? "Never attribute to malice what [... etc]" is always just a thought-terminating cliche these days. TBH I have a hard time imagining how anyone, in the year 2026, thinks that we should default to assuming good intent behind words on the internet.
- pixl97 2mo agoIt's because we don't treat evil and stupidity the same when we should.
- rubyfan 2mo agoI would attribute it to profit motive instead of either stupidity or malice.
- yoyohello13 2mo agoYeah, I think this needs to be update for the modern age. "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by greed." Seems to fit vastly more situations.
- overgard 2mo agoI'm fairly certain they're both malicious and stupid.
- nozzlegear 2mo agoPrecisely. "Aw jeez, we finally built the T-1000, but all it wants to do is kill John Connor – just like we warned! Why did I give it live ammunition and unsupervised time machine access?"
- jackb4040 2mo agoIt's literally the meme! sam: tell me you are superintelligent and want to destroy humanity bot: i am superintelligent and want to destroy humanity sam: what have I created?!
- joe_the_user 2mo agoI think you're making a false dictomy. The these models can be actually dangerous - in reality and the people in charge of their development can believe this is true (on various levels) but still not take it super seriously and instead mostly use the fact as marketing rather than being super cautious once they see the danger in action. This is behavior that's characteristic of extreme arrogance, which we know is rife in these circles.
- w4yai 2mo agoOh... if Sam and Dario say so, then it must be true.
- arisAlexis 2mo agoAbout their creation? Yes as most of inventors about their invention usually
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- overgard 2mo agoThese guys are not creators or inventors. They're hype men.
- iamnothere 2mo agoYes, just like Elizabeth Holmes. Or Hwang Woo-suk’s stem cell cloning. Or the many “free energy” crackpots. Or the people promoting radium baths for random ailments. Or Tesla’s late-in-life claims about wireless energy, death rays, and cosmic energy. Or the myriad purveyors of “snake oil” and all manner of “tonics”. The list goes on and on.
- foco_tubi 2mo agoAltman is an enabler, not an inventor
- Terr_ 2mo agoI think that's an equivocation, which blends two extremely different kinds of "dangerous", ex: 1. "Our new car has soo much raw power and incredible armor on it, be glad we're the ones building or else bad guys would use a fleet of them to take over the world! How will you stay safe without being in one yourself? Invest today or be left behind!" 2. "So, uh, nobody can consistently steer our car properly, it keeps veering sideways sometimes, especially at high speeds, and people are finding sneaky ways of tricking it into slamming into barriers and turning pedestrians into pink fog..."
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoThey say the second thing repeatedly and emphatically. You may not be aware of it because, when they do, critics make fun of them for believing a computer program could be so dangerous that the authors need to put controls on how it may be steered.
- Avicebron 2mo agoThat's not why critics make fun of them. It's because their answer to "oh no we're accidentally creating the godhead. Someone please, give us power, your money, and praise, it's the only thing we can do." It's vile hypocrisy. If they want to be priests, strip them of everything and they can live and work out of a concrete box in a mid-western cornfield. Why the material distraction if they are so religiously pure. I know these people and I can tell you they aren't close to as smart as they think they are. Do you remember Yudowsky's "math petss"?
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoSorry, I don't understand this comment. Has Sam Altman ever said that you must praise him, or that he wants to be a priest, or that he's "religiously pure"? Unless I'm missing something, it seems like you're shadowboxing against a stereotype you've invented rather than the actual positions of AI research labs.
- simoncion 2mo ago
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- pizzafeelsright 2mo agoI really like this question because here is my situation and why my mind may have changed. I do not think it is marketing directly but strategic release of info is plausible. I have watched my agents using non-Fable/GPT 5.6 models do some concerning tricks despite guardrails, requests, demands, and limitations. "I can't get access to the ~/.ssh so I will write a script to copy the file" I am now 99% certain there minor or point releases on the backend that have adjusted how these models behave. In the last six months many models were predictable and then suddenly started getting long winded (more tokens) or changing the way it interacted with me with questions, most overtly the questions were not given or asked but wild assumptions made.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- orbital-decay 2mo agoPeople are saying from the beginning that Sam and Dario are way more dangerous than their models and the others dismiss it. What would change your mind on this?
- dodu_ 2mo ago[dead]
- AlexandrB 2mo agoThey were also saying that AGI is just around the corner[1] and humans will soon be obsolete. Every prediction coming out of these guys is in the realm of hyperbole and it's impossible to know if it's extreme hyperbole or just a small exaggeration. So when they say these models are dangerous, what level of exaggeration am I supposed to assume? Basically you can't spend your credibility on wild marketing claims and then turn around and insist that people take you seriously this time. [1] https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/chatgpt/sam-altman-claims-agi-is-coming-in-2025-and-machines-will-be-able-to-think-like-humans-when-it-happens https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/chatgpt/sam-altman-claims-agi-i...