Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Openai said that they could convince or manipulate people, maybe the election will stop evaluating the AI models before leaving them to help them create or manipulate campaigns.
The company will now solve these risks, following how to solve these risks in the political campaigns and restricting the use of AI models in political campaigns and lobbying, he said.
Openai also said that the AI models think that they are released in relation to the “critical risk”, which has taken appropriate steps to reduce these dangers and even offers a similar model of an opponent’s AI laboratory. Earlier, Openai said he would not release the EU model, which offers more than “average risk”.
The changes in the policy were established in an update of Openai “Preparation Framework ” yesterday. This framework is following the company’s AI models, potential catastrophic threats – potential catastrophic dangers will help you create a biological weapon to help anyone’s ability to help hackers to hackers and help human control.
Politics shares AI security and security experts. Several, clearer risk categories allowed social media to allow several social media to make a stronger emphasis on developing threats to develop such as risks and the threats of autonomous replication and protection.
However, others expressed their concerns, including the former Openai Security Researcher, which criticized that the updated framework does not require security tests of subtle adjustable models. “Openai has reduces its safety obligations,” he said wrote in x. Again, he evaluated Openai’s efforts: “I am pleased to see the preparation framework,” he said. “It was a large number of jobs and not seriously required.”
Some critics stressed the elimination of the threatening framework.
“Openai seems to change his approach,” he said. “Instead of persuasion such as the main risk category, it is possible to be resolved either as a higher level of society and regulation or access to existing instructions on the model development and use restrictions.” It is seen as it sees how it will play in areas like politics and the EU’s convincing opportunities are “still an arguing issue.”
Brookings, a large fellow, International Democracy and Technology Center working on the Center for International Management Innovation and AI ECCA, called a message in a message Fortune “Another example of the technology sector’s hubris.” It stressed that the decision to reduce the “persuasion” is not only dangerous to persuasion, children or AI literacy or AI literacy or people in authoritarian states and societies. “
Oren Etzioni Oren Etzioni, a founder of AI and Truemedia, who offers vehicles to fight AI, also expressed concern. “Engrading deception hits me as a mistake that is growing in an e-mail,” he said. “One should think that Openai will simply be directed to follow income with minimal impact on society’s effects.”
However, an AI security researcher was not related to Openai Fortune Disinformation or other harmful persuasive risks are acceptable to use Openai by means of service conditions. The researcher who asks the current employer to remain anonymous to prevent public disclosure to the public is difficult to evaluate the test before the risk of persuasion / manipulation. In addition, he noted that this risk category is more amorphous and amorphous than other critical risks, such as risk, such as risk, to help someone attack a chemical or biological weapon or help someone in cyber.
It is noteworthy that some members of the European Parliament He was also concerned The EU reduced the mandatory test of the AI models to spread the most recent project to fit the EU EU and causing a voluntary consideration of the AI models of the EU.
Studies found that AI chatbots were highly convincing, although this ability itself is definitely dangerous. For example, researchers at Cornell University and MIT, ruminate Dialogues with Chatbots were effective in obtaining the conspiracy theories of questions to people.
Openai’s updated framework is called in a line located in the center of a line that opened another criticism: “If another border AI developer broadcasts a high-risk system without comparable protectors, we can adjust our requirements.”
Max Tegmark, the head of the Institute of Life, expressed in a statement, including the head of the future, existential risks, developed AI systems Fortune “Competing to the bottom. These companies are an open race to build a person, our families, our families, our national security, even the national security, and even a person designed to replace the existence.”
“None of those who say about AI security that gives them a signal are not carved in the stone,” said Openai Critic Gary Marcus Linkedin Message marking a race to the bottom of the line. “It really is not a competitive pressure, not a competitive pressure, but a few times they promise several times.
In general, it is useful for companies such as Openai to explain the views of risk management practices, Miranda Bogen, Director of the AI Management Laboratory at the Democracy and Technology Laboratory. Fortune in an email.
He said he was worried about moving the door points. “AI systems would be a clear tendency, as it seems to be fixed certain risks, these risks are not separated for themselves for themselves.
Although Openai and other companies use the technical definition of this period as an excuse to not publish security assessments of strong models, but also criticized the framework. (Eg Openai) released Yesterday 4.1 said that without a security report, there is no border model. In other cases, companies also have Could not publish security reports Or I was slow to do it, publish them in a few months after the model.
“An example of a sample, which has emerged between these issues and new models, which new models are not released or not, are well-known or entirely starting or entirely starting or entirely started, it is clear that voluntary liabilities are still.
Update, April 16: This story was updated to include the comments of the President of the Life Institute Max Tegmark.
This story was first displayed Fortune.com
