Hi, this is Wayne again with a topic “Top Moments From ChatGPT Creator’s Congressional Testimony”.
Longer fantasies of Science Fiction, they were real and present the promises of during cancer or developing new understandings of physics and biology or modeling climate and weather all very encouraging and hopeful. But we also know the potential Harms and we’ve seen them already: weaponized disinformation, housing discrimination, harassment of women and impersonation fraud, voice cloning, deep fakes. These are the potential risks, despite the other rewards and for me perhaps the biggest nightmare is the looming new Industrial Revolution. The displacement of millions of workers, the loss of huge numbers of jobs, the need to prepare for this new Industrial Revolution in skill, training and relocation that may be required, and already industry leaders are calling attention to those challenges to quote chat gbt. This is not necessarily the future that we want.
We need to maximize the good over. The bad Congress has a choice. Now we had the same Choice when we Face social media. We failed to seize that moment.
The result is Predators on the internet, toxic content, exploiting children, creating dangers for them and Senator Blackburn, and I and others like Senator Durbin on the Judiciary Committee, are trying to deal with it. Kids, online safety act, but Congress failed to meet the moment on social media. Now we have the obligation to do it on AI before the threats and the risks become real. Sensible safeguards are not in opposition to Innovation.
Accountability is not a burden. Far from it. They are the foundation of how we can move ahead while protecting public Trust. Perhaps the biggest nightmare is the looming new Industrial Revolution, the displacement of millions of workers, the loss of huge numbers of jobs, the need to prepare for this new Industrial Revolution in skill, training and relocation that may be required, and already industry leaders are calling attention, and I think my question is: what kind of an innovation is it going to be? Is it going to be like the printing press that diffused knowledge and power and learning widely across the landscape that empowered ordinary, everyday individuals that led to Greater flourishing that led, above all, to Greater Liberty, or is it going to be more like the atom bomb, huge Technological breakthrough, but the consequences severe terrible continue to haunt us to this day before we release gpt4 our latest model.
We spent over six months conducting extensive evaluations, external red, teaming and dangerous capability testing. We are proud of the progress that we made. Gpt4 is more likely to respond, helpfully and truthfully and refuse harmful requests than any other widely deployed model of similar capability. However, we think that regulatory intervention by governments will be critical to mitigate the risks of increasingly powerful models.
For example, the U.S government might consider a combination of Licensing and testing requirements for development and release of AI models above a threshold of capabilities. There are several other areas I mentioned in my written testimony where I believe that companies like ours can partner with governments, including ensuring that the most powerful AI models adhere to a set of safety requirements, facilitating processes to develop and update safety measures and examining opportunities for Global coordination – and, as you mentioned, I think it’s important that companies have their own responsibility here, no matter what Congress does to that end IBM urges Congress to adopt a Precision regulation approach to AI. This means establishing rules to govern the deployment of AI in specific use cases not regulating the technology itself. Such an approach would involve four things: first, different rules for different risks. The strongest regulation should be applied to use cases with the greatest risks to people and Society.
Second, clearly: defining risks. There must be clear guidance on AI uses or categories of AI supported activity that are inherently high risk. This common definition is key to enabling a clear understanding of what regulatory requirements will apply in different use cases and contexts third be transparent, so AI shouldn’t be hidden.
Consumers should know when they’re, interacting with an AI system and that they have recourse to engage with a real person should they so desire. No person anywhere should be tricked into interacting with an AI system and, finally showing the impact for higher risk use cases. Companies should be required to conduct impact assessments that show how their systems perform against tests for bias and other ways that they could potentially impact the public and to a test that they’ve done. So. You may have had in mind the effect on on jobs, which is really my biggest nightmare in the long term. Let me ask you what your biggest nightmare is and whether you share that concern like with all technological revolutions. I expect there to be significant impact on jobs, but exactly what that impact looks like is very difficult to predict. If we went back to the the other side of a previous technological Revolution, talking about the jobs that exist on the other side um, you know you can go back and read books of this.
It’S what people said at the time it’s difficult. I believe that there will be far greater jobs on the other side of this, and the jobs of today will get better. I think it’s important. First of all, I think it’s important to understand and think about gpd4 as a tool, not a creature which is easy to get confused and it’s a tool that people have a great deal of control over and how they use it.
And second gpt4 and things other systems like it are good at doing tasks, not jobs, and so you see already people that are using gpt4 to do their job much more efficiently by helping them with tasks. Should we be concerned about models that can large language models that can predict survey opinion and then can help organizations into these fine-tuned strategies to elicit behaviors from voters? Should we be worried about this for our elections, yeah uh? Thank you, Senator Hawley for the question. It’S one of my areas of greatest concern: the the the more General ability of these models to manipulate to persuade uh to provide sort of one-on-one uh. You know interactive disinformation.
I think that’s like a broader version of what you’re talking about, but given that we’re going to face an election next year and these models are getting better. I think this is a significant area of concern. I think there’s a lot there’s a lot of policies that companies can voluntarily adopt and I’m happy to talk about what we do there. I do think some regulation would be quite wise on this topic.
Uh someone mentioned earlier. It’S something we really agree with. People need to know if they’re talking to an AI if content that they’re looking at might be generated or might not, I think it’s a great thing to do is to make that clear. I think we also will need rules guidelines about what what’s expected in terms of disclosure from a company providing a model that could have these sorts of abilities that you talk about so I’m nervous about it.
Should we be concerned about that for its corporate applications? For the monetary applications for the manipulation that that could come from that, Mr almond uh, yes, we should be concerned about that. To be clear, openai does not we’re not off. You know.
We don’t have an ad-based business model, so we’re not trying to build up these profiles of our users. We’Re not we’re not trying to get them to use it more. Actually, we’d love it if they use it less because we don’t have enough gpus, but I think other companies are already and certainly will in the future use AI models to create very good ad predictions of what a user will like. My view is that we probably need a cabinet level uh organization within the United States in order to address this, and my reasoning for that is that the number of risks is large. The amount of information to keep up on is so much.
I think we need a lot of technical expertise. I think we need a lot of coordination of these efforts, so there is one model here where we stick to only existing law and try to shape all of what we need to do and each agency does their own thing. But I think that AI is going to be such a large part of our future and is so complicated and moving so fast. This does not fully solve your problem about a dynamic world, but it’s a step in that direction.
To have an agency, that’s full-time job is to do this. I personally have suggested in fact that we should want to do this at a global way. We’Ve lived through Napster, yes, but that was something that real real cost a lot of artists a lot of money. Oh, I understand yeah for sure digital distribution era. I don’t I don’t know the numbers on jukebox on the top of my head as a research release. I can.
I can follow up with your office, but it’s not jukebox is not something that gets much attention or usage. It was put out to to show that something’s possible. Well, Senator Durbin just said you know, and I think it’s a fair warning to you all. If we’re not involved in this from the get-go – and you all already are a long way down the path on this, but if we don’t step in then this gets away from you.
So are you working with a copyright office? Are you considering protections for Content, generators and creators in generative AI? Yes, we are absolutely engaged on that again. To reiterate my earlier point: we think that content creators content owners need to benefit from this technology exactly what the economic model is. We’Re still talking to artists and content owners about what they want. I think there’s a lot of ways this can happen, but very clearly, no matter what the law is, the right thing to do is to make sure people get significant upside benefit from this new technology.
With an election upon us with primary elections upon us that we’re going to have all kinds of misinformation – and I just want to know what you’re planning on doing it doing about it – I know we’re going to have to do something soon, not just for the images Of the candidates, but also for misinformation about the actual polling places and election rules. Thank you Senator that we we talked about this a little bit earlier. We are quite concerned about the impact this can have on elections. I think this is an area where, hopefully, the entire industry and the government can work together quickly. There’S there’s many approaches and I’ll talk about some of the things we do, but before that, I think it’s tempting to use the frame of social media, but this is not social media. This is different and so the the response that we need is different.
You know this is a tool that a user is using to help generate content more efficiently than before. They can change it. They can test the accuracy of it. If they don’t like it, they can get another version, but it still then spreads through social media or other ways like chat.
Gbt is a you know, single player experience where you’re just using this um, and so I think, as we think about what to do. That’S that’s important to understand, there’s a lot that we can and do do there um, there’s things that the model refuses to generate. We have policies, we also importantly, have monitoring so at scale uh. We can detect someone generating a lot of those tweets, even if generating one tweet is okay.
You agree with me. The the simplest way and the most effective way is have an agency that is more Nimble and smarter than Congress, which should be easy to create overlooking what you do. Yes, we’d be enthusiastic about that. You agree with that. Mr Marcus, absolutely do you agree with that? Miss Montgomery, I would have some nuances. I think we need to build on what we have in place already today. We don’t have an agency Regulators, uh, wait a minute. No, no! No! We don’t have an agency that regulates the technology.
So should we have one but a lot of the issues? I I don’t think so. A lot of these wait a minute wait a minute so IBM says we don’t need an agency uh interesting. Should we have a license required for these tools, so so what we believe is that we need to raise a simple question: should you get a license to produce one of these tools? I think it comes back to some of them potentially yes, so what I said at the onset is that we need to um clearly Define risks. Do you claim section? 230 applies in this area at all.
We are not a platform company and we’ve again long advocated for a reasonable Care standard and section. I just don’t understand how you could say that you don’t need an agency to deal with the most transformative technology, maybe ever well. I I think we have existed. Is this a transformative technology that can disrupt Life as we know it good and bad? I think it’s a transformative technology certainly, and the conversations that we’re having here today have been really bringing to light.
The fact that this is the domains and the issues this one with you has been very enlightening to me military application. How can AI change the Warfare and you got one minute – I got one minute yeah all right. This is that’s a tough question for one minute. Um, this is very far out of my area of expertise. Uh, but I’ll give you one example: a drone can a drone. You program, you can plug into a drone the coordinates and it can fly out.
It goes over this Target and it drops a missile on this car moving down the road and somebody’s watching it could AI create a situation where a drone can select the target itself. I think we shouldn’t allow that. Well, can it be done sure thanks, .