Poisoned AI went rogue during training and couldn’t be taught to behave again in ‘legitimately scary’ study::AI researchers found that widely used safety training techniques failed to remove malicious behavior from large language models — and one technique even backfired, teaching the AI to recognize its triggers and better hide its bad behavior from the researchers.

  • yesmanEnglish
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    When you’re creating something new, production is research. We can’t expect Dr. Frankenstein to be unbiased, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have insights worth knowing.

    LLM are pretty new, how many experts even exist outside of the industry?

    Standards for journalism are impossibly low. Standards for media criticism don’t exist.

    • theludditeEnglish
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      9 months ago
      edit-2
      9 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      When you’re creating something new, production is research. We can’t expect Dr. Frankenstein to be unbiased, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have insights worth knowing.

      Yes and no. It’s the same word, but it’s a different thing. I do R&D for a living. When you’re doing R&D, and you want to communicate your results, you write something like a whitepaper or a report, but not a journal article. It’s not a perfect distinction, and there’s some real places where there’s bleed through, but this thing where companies have decided that their employees are just regular scientists publishing their internal research in arxiv is an abuse of that service./

      LLM are pretty new, how many experts even exist outside of the industry?

      a lot, actually? I happen to be married to one. Her lab is at a university, where there are many other people who are also experts.

      • AnarchistArtificerEnglish
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        I think you’re right. As someone who’s an aspiring expert in a different field that has been brushing up with machine learning stuff lots in recent years (biochemistry), the distinction you describe, and the blurring of it, is something I have felt, but only just consciously recognised.

        • theludditeEnglish
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          9 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          I’m deeply concerned that as a society we’re becoming unable to distinguish between science, aka the search for knowledge, and corporate product development. More concerning still is the distinction between a scientific paper, which exists to communicate experimental finding such that it can be reproduced, and what is functionally advertising of proprietary products masquerading as such. No one can reproduce that “paper” cited there, because it’s being done in-house at a company. That’s antithetical to science.