>

Yah I don’t think anyone is really arguing that language models, along with many other facets of cybernetic tools CAN be used maliciously. It seems that you have already proved that point rather soundly in your post. 
A more rich argument may emerge from asking if the dangers of language models that emulate human discourse pose a serious enough threat that this type of technology should be less accessible.
/u/chimp246 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Might be? Every possible application of software for any purpose will always be exploited for safe and unsafe purposes. Assume Murphy's law is like rule number 1 for infosec. 
My question to you is why on earth would you think exploitable software wouldn't be used for nefarious purposes? >


My question to you is why on earth would you think exploitable software wouldn't be used for nefarious purposes?

Obviously every technology has a negative impact. I think a highly intelligent AI would have an especially negative impact because of its abllility to mimic a bad actor. While new technologies in weaponry and computation can be used for evil purposes, AI can actually emulate evil intelligence. >

Of course AI can be used nefariously. That's trivially true because it's just a tool. So what's the view you want changed? 
How could someone possibly prove a tool can't be used nefariously? Even a hammer can be used nefariously. >


How could someone possibly prove a tool can't be used nefariously? Even a hammer can be used nefariously.

Right, theoretically you could write a similar post about the dangers of more advanced hammer equipment and the thesis would hold. For me, the huge difference is that a language model is something more than a tool: it's a system capable of understanding plans and complex motives. The kinds of scary things you can do with misaligned intelligence are a lot worse than the things you can do with standard human tools. >

But no one can possibly prove hammers can't do any damage to a person because they trivially can. 
Why would you be open to changing the view that hammers can be used to harm someone? >


But no one can possibly prove hammers can't do any damage to a person because they trivially can. 

That's a fair criticism. I probably should have made the post slightly more slightly clearer in the conclusion: language models should be tightly regulated. >

There's no "might" and I don't think AI really even needs to be much above average to be dangerous.
Nefarious use of AI is already happening, we'll start hearing more about it this year. >

!delta We can agree that even a below average AI can have a negative impact. I don't think that changes the central thesis? It makes the central thesis even stronger. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/-paperbrain- (81∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards