[halayli]

Maybe I missed it but I don't see them defining what they mean by ethics. Ethics/morals are subjective and changes dynamically over time. Companies have no business trying to define what is ethical and what isn't due to conflict of interest. The elephant in the room is not being addressed here.

[spacebanana7]

Especially as most AI safety concerns are essentially political, and uncensored LLMs exist anyway for people who want to do crazy stuff like having a go at building their own nuclear submarine or rewriting their git history with emoji only commit messages.

For corporate safety it makes sense that models resist saying silly things, but it's okay for that to be a superficial layer that power users can prompt their way around.

[gmerc]

Ah the classic Silicon Valley "as long as someone could disagree, don't bother us with regulation, it's hard".

[sciencejerk]

Often abbreviated to simply "Regulation is hard." Or "Security is hard"

[voidhorse]

Your water supply definitely wants ethical companies.

[nradov]

Ethics are all well and good but I would prefer to have quantified limits for water quality with strict enforcement and heavy penalties for violations.

[alex43578]

Is it ethical for a water company to shutoff water to a poor immigrant family because of non-payment? Depending on the AI's political and DEI-bend, you're going to get totally different answers. Having people judge an AI's response is also going to be influenced by the evaluator's personal bias.

[afavour]

I understand the point you’re making but I think there’s a real danger of that logic enabling the shrugging of shoulders in the face of immoral behavior.

It’s notable that, no matter exactly where you draw the line on morality, different AI agents perform very differently.