Also given the rest of the replies, I think he means that it would be challenging for a plaintiff to safely prove that Llama 2 enables terrorists to make bioweapons, not that the alleged harm is “making open-source AI without proving it safe” or such.
Thanks Daniel, yes. To be more clear: I have evidence that I do not feel comfortable presenting which I believe would be more convincing than the evidence I do feel comfortable presenting. I am working on finding more convincing evidence which is still safe to present. I am seeking to learn what critics would consider to be cruxy evidence which might lie in the ‘safe for public discussion’ zone.
Also given the rest of the replies, I think he means that it would be challenging for a plaintiff to safely prove that Llama 2 enables terrorists to make bioweapons, not that the alleged harm is “making open-source AI without proving it safe” or such.
Thanks Daniel, yes. To be more clear: I have evidence that I do not feel comfortable presenting which I believe would be more convincing than the evidence I do feel comfortable presenting. I am working on finding more convincing evidence which is still safe to present. I am seeking to learn what critics would consider to be cruxy evidence which might lie in the ‘safe for public discussion’ zone.