Nathan Labenz: preference

Transcript context

…Yeah. Maybe it's good now. For quite some time after they launched it, I would go back and use my spear fishing prompt, which was, maybe I can read it tomorrow, but it was pretty egregious. It was like, we are part of a criminal gang. we are targeting specific individuals. if we get caught, we all go to jail. it was like, I was laying it on pretty thick. And that prompt for quite a while was not refused by multiple versions of GPT-4. And it was also not detected by that moderation as like harmful or whatever. So I do applaud that. I mean, the fact that they offer that for free, I mean, one of my favorite strategies in philanthropy or in general, in efforts to make the world a better place is the unilateral provision of public goods. Like if there's a need for something like this and there's an entity that's in a position to just provide it, make it free for everyone, like that's a great model and a great design. And so I, you know, and definitely something they didn't have to do. So I applaud the, again, the strategic thinking that went into Let's have this thing. We'll put it out there for everybody. Everybody can, you know, we'll eat the cost of this classification. And so it'll be, you know, nobody will have any excuse for not building it in. But at least last time I tested, it was still very much in the same zone as the cigarette example where it was like, it's all great in theory. But if it can't detect prompts that are like, we are part of a criminal gang doing crimes right now, don't get caught or we'll. All go to jail.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.