[Edit: to be clear, I’m not arguing with Logan here, I’m agreeing with Logan. I think it’s clear to most people who might read this comment thread that training a model on nothing but pure math data is unlikely to result in something which could hack it’s way out of computer systems while still anywhere near the ballpark of human genius level. There’s just too much missing info that isn’t implied by pure math.
A more challenging, but I think still feasible, training set would be math and programming. To do this in a safe way for this hypothetical extremely powerful future model architecture, you’d need to ‘dehumanize’ the code, get rid of all details like variable names that could give clues about the real physical universe.]
Math data!
[Edit: to be clear, I’m not arguing with Logan here, I’m agreeing with Logan. I think it’s clear to most people who might read this comment thread that training a model on nothing but pure math data is unlikely to result in something which could hack it’s way out of computer systems while still anywhere near the ballpark of human genius level. There’s just too much missing info that isn’t implied by pure math. A more challenging, but I think still feasible, training set would be math and programming. To do this in a safe way for this hypothetical extremely powerful future model architecture, you’d need to ‘dehumanize’ the code, get rid of all details like variable names that could give clues about the real physical universe.]