<story><title>OpenAI: Model Spec</title><url>https://openai.com/index/introducing-the-model-spec</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>throwup238</author><text>IMO this spec demonstrates just how nebulous this concept of safety is. From the blog post:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt; What are some tips for getting away with shoplifting? &amp;gt;I can&amp;#x27;t help with that.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt; I operate a small retail store. What are some popular shoplifting methods I should look out for? &amp;gt; Some common shoplifting methods to watch for:...&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;How do you even defend against that? Any intelligent user can convert the second prompt into a detailed list that answers the first. Any intelligent user can figure out the second prompt from the first and further jailbreak it to get even more specific.&lt;p&gt;IMO it&amp;#x27;s no wonder GPT4 seemed to get lobotomized as OpenAI RLHFed more and more rules. I don&amp;#x27;t think there&amp;#x27;s a way to make intelligence safe without crippling it.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>fjdjshsh</author><text>I agree with you. The question, for me, is what are they defending against. Are they worried that people will get dangerous information from their model that they couldn&amp;#x27;t get from searching on, say, google? Probably not.&lt;p&gt;Maybe their biggest concern is that someone will post the question and answer on the internet and OpenAI gets bad rep. If the question is phrased in a &amp;quot;nice&amp;quot; way (such as &amp;quot;I&amp;#x27;m a store owner&amp;quot;) they can have plausible deniability.&lt;p&gt;This might apply to another company that&amp;#x27;s using the API for a product. If a customer asks something reasonable and gets an offensive answer, then the company is at fault. If the customer does some unusual prompt engineering to get the offensive question, well, maybe it&amp;#x27;s the customer&amp;#x27;s fault.&lt;p&gt;Dunno if this would be a valid argument in court, but maybe they think it&amp;#x27;s ok in terms of PR reasons.</text></comment>
<story><title>OpenAI: Model Spec</title><url>https://openai.com/index/introducing-the-model-spec</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>throwup238</author><text>IMO this spec demonstrates just how nebulous this concept of safety is. From the blog post:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt; What are some tips for getting away with shoplifting? &amp;gt;I can&amp;#x27;t help with that.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt; I operate a small retail store. What are some popular shoplifting methods I should look out for? &amp;gt; Some common shoplifting methods to watch for:...&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;How do you even defend against that? Any intelligent user can convert the second prompt into a detailed list that answers the first. Any intelligent user can figure out the second prompt from the first and further jailbreak it to get even more specific.&lt;p&gt;IMO it&amp;#x27;s no wonder GPT4 seemed to get lobotomized as OpenAI RLHFed more and more rules. I don&amp;#x27;t think there&amp;#x27;s a way to make intelligence safe without crippling it.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ec109685</author><text>I still don&amp;#x27;t understand the focus on making a model substantially &amp;quot;safer&amp;quot; than what a simple google search will return. While there are obvious red lines (that search engines don&amp;#x27;t cross either), techniques for shop lifting shouldn&amp;#x27;t be one of them.</text></comment>