this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
2 points (52.4% liked)
Technology
74994 readers
2931 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I read about this earlier on Ars Technica. I was expecting a paywalled link. Was not expecting to find a mention of "No Longer Human." Ars didn't mention that. Or the chat logs. It was a long article but didn't go into the same depth.
So, I've read "No Longer Human." A more recent translation is called "A Shameful Life" and that's a bit more apt, I think, but doesn't have the same ring. It's about a guy who feels less and less like a person, like what he does and feels doesn't matter. It's a wild book, about a double suicide, and the author later killed himself much the same way. There have been several adaptations — none of them very good. None of them quite captured the book. I wonder if it's just unfilmable. Anyway, it's a shame that it's being referenced here, because it's good literature worth considering, and I hate to see it maligned in much the same way as the Doom game was following the Columbine massacre. Relevant or not (guns in that case, suicide in this case), it's a shame art gets associated with tragedy simply by association.
Perhaps the same could be said of AI technology, and it has been. But certainly AI needs better safeguards. According to Ars, when the guy started asking about suicide, ChatGPT said it could not help him — unless he specified he was talking about fictional characters. So he did that (Ars constantly refers to it as a "jailbreak") for a while, and then I guess (and they guess as well) that ChatGPT just assumed that context and stopped requiring him to specify that.
No. Much like a kitchen blender, it's a tool. It's on the user to not stick their hand into it and turn it on
Even blenders have safeguards though, if the pitcher isn't installed most won't work. I don't think it's insane to require some sort of safety with LLMs.
I think the metaphor is finetuning a LLM for ‘safety’ is like trying to engineer the blades to be “finger safe”, when the better approach would be to guard against fingers getting inside an active blender.
Finetuning LLMs to be safe is just not going to work, but building stricter usage structures around them will. Like tools.
This kinda goes against Altman's assertion that they’re magic crystal balls (in progress), which would pop his bubble he’s holding up. But in the weeds of LLM land, you see a lot more people calling for less censoring, and more sensible and narrow usage.
The pitcher doesn't stop you from sticking your fingers into it if you try, it just makes accidents less likely. Same thing here.
A blender with glass blades that frequently shatter when at full speed or when cutting hard food. It also has no lid and is marketed as a bath toy.
It's up to the user to think for themselves and not use it as a bath toy. And to use safety goggles. And check the food for glass shards before each bite.