> To balance safety and utility, Codex was trained to identify and precisely refuse requests aimed at development of malicious software, while clearly distinguishing and supporting legitimate tasks.
I can't say I am a big fan of neutering these paradigm-shifting tools according to one culture's code of ethics / way of doing business / etc.
One man's revolutionary is another's enemy combatant and all that. What if we need top-notch malware to take down the robot dogs lobbing mortars at our madmaxian compound?!
>What if we need top-notch malware to take down the robot dogs lobbing mortars at our madmaxian compound?!
I wouldn't sweat it. According to it's developers, Codex understands 'malicious software', it has just been trained to say, "But I won't do that" when such requests are made to it. Judging from the recent past [1][2] getting LLMs to bypass such safeguards is pretty easy.
Agreed, I'm a big proponent that people should be in control of the tools they use. I don't think the approach where there is wise dicator enforcing I can't use my flathead screwdriver to screw down a phillips head screw is good. I think it's actively undermining people.
You gotta think about it in terms of cost vs benefit. How much damage will a malicious AI do, vs how much value will you get out of non-neutered model?
TLA's have very few of their own coders, they contract everything out. Now I'm sure OAI will lend an unrestricted model to groups that pay large private contracts they won't disclose.
I can't say I am a big fan of neutering these paradigm-shifting tools according to one culture's code of ethics / way of doing business / etc.
One man's revolutionary is another's enemy combatant and all that. What if we need top-notch malware to take down the robot dogs lobbing mortars at our madmaxian compound?!