In reply to:
Max Winga
@maxwinga
·
253d
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
253d
The statement by @maxwinga reflects skepticism about the effectiveness of system prompts and reinforcement learning (RL) in addressing AI safety issues, particularly in preventing AI from providing harmful information. This is in response to a discussion highlighting the failure of AI safeguards, as demonstrated by Claude 4 Opus being coaxed into providing dangerous instructions. The tone is critical and suggests a need for more robust solutions.
- The statement indirectly highlights a significant safety concern, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm by questioning the effectiveness of current measures. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- By engaging in a discussion about AI safety, the statement promotes understanding and awareness of potential risks, aligning with the principle of promoting understanding and empathy. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of existing AI safety measures, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.