Because safety and welfare have literally nothing to do with LLMs. They generate text. If someone is stupid enough to hook the text generator up to nuclear missile launchers and try to "align" it against nuclear annihilation with a "pretty please don't do that" prompt, I'm not going to blame the AI for the impending nuclear apocalypse, I'm going to blame the idiot who handed the big red button to the digital equivalent of a toddler.

Anthropic's stance on safety it's just PR management and their hope to keep the others down, they are rushing as blind as everyone else to whatever improvement they can achieve.

> scientists who have spent their lives studying this

Please point me to one actual accredited scientist who has spent a lifetime studying AI alignment? Pretty much this whole field is only 5 years old

This is known as an "appeal to authority." "Scientists" and "their lives" are doing a lot of work here.

Excuse me for not being interested in over 100 pages of how well the model can refuse and block my requests, especially considering how fun it is to waste my time trying to get around those restrictions when they inevitably trigger because the clanker thinks that I'm doing something naughty, all the while it can't reliably center the proverbial div without doing something stupid itself.

Model welfare is wishy washy bullshit. It's software, it doesn't have feelings.

> Why do you think your conception of the dangers are more accurate than all the scientists who have spent their lives studying this?

Do the Chinese have no such scientists?

Bias…

keep me safe big brother