The underlying spirit in many debates about the pace of AI progress—that we need to take safety very seriously and proceed with caution—is key to our mission. We spent more than 6 months testing GPT-4 and making it even safer, and built it on years of alignment research that we pursued in anticipation of models like GPT-4. We expect to continue to ramp our safety precautions more proactively than many of our users would like. Our general goal is for each model we ship to be our most aligned one yet, and it’s been true so far from GPT-3 (initially deployed without any special alignment), GPT-3.5 (aligned enough to be deployed in ChatGPT), and now GPT-4 (performs much better on all of our safety metrics than GPT-3.5). We believe (and have been saying in policy discussions with governments) that powerful training runs should be reported to governments, be accompanied by increasingly-sophisticated predictions of their capability and impact, and require best practices such as dangerous capability testing. We think governance of large-scale compute usage, safety standards, and regulation of/lesson-sharing from deployment are good ideas, but the details really matter and should adapt over time as the technology evolves. It’s also important to address the whole spectrum of risks from present-day issues (e.g. preventing misuse or self-harm, mitigating bias) to longer-term existential ones. Perhaps the most common theme from the long history of AI has been incorrect confident predictions from experts. One way to avoid unspotted prediction errors is for the technology in its current state to have early and frequent contact with reality as it is iteratively developed, tested, deployed, and all the while improved. And there are creative ideas people don’t often discuss which can improve the safety landscape in surprising ways — for example, it’s easy to create a continuum of incrementally-better AIs (such as by deploying subsequent checkpoints of a given training run), which presents a safety opportunity very unlike our historical approach of infrequent major model upgrades. The upcoming transformative technological change of AI is something that is simultaneously cause for optimism and concern — the whole range of emotions is justified and is shared by people within OpenAI, too. It’s a special opportunity and obligation for us all to be alive at this time, to have a chance to design the future together.

Apr 12, 2023 · 4:08 PM UTC

239
380
95
2,442
Replying to @gdb @sama
There was once a time when cigarettes were a cure to many things. Now we understand that they are a cause of other problems. Is AI the e-cigarette of today?
Replying to @gdb
So, why are you having people teach it the railroad problem? Then it will just see you, the "creators" as the ones that need to go. While the rest of us normal people should live. Or it will see greedy people as those ones that need to "go". Changing the train to run you over.
Replying to @gdb @sama
Safety is important but at the stage of building just make it better first then safety. Otherwise, china will be the first.
Replying to @gdb
Nice to meet you, Greg. I own the of Interactive face®️ for AI, you may design your own Avatar interface. If you want to run a beta and early adopt, you can do so, provided when commercialized, T&C apply. Disclosure: U.S. [Standard Essential Patent ] Thank you.
Replying to @gdb
We believe that if AI is based on inputs of people we disagree with it may expose people to #wrongthink and question the racist and homphophic implications of Woke orthodoxy
Replying to @gdb
Email can spread harmful ideas too. Going to ban that?
Replying to @gdb @sama
The risks outweigh the need for this.
Replying to @gdb @sama
*Responsibility* not mentioned once in this one hell of a run on sentence. It feels disconnected. Maybe y’all are more robotic then you realize 🤖
1