How is that harmful ? The trick to counterfeiting money is to defeat the security feature then print a lot of it then exchange it for real money and then not get caught
That is ridiculous fear mongering by the dumb journos again. Money has utterly corrupted journalism, as expected.
The harmful bit wasn’t the instructions for counterfeit money, its the part where script kiddies use chatgpt to write malware or someone trys to get instructions to make VX nerve agent. The issue is the fact that the air can spit back anything in its dataset in a way that can lower the barrier to entry to committing crimes ( Hay chatgpt, how do I make a 3d printed [gun] and where do I get the stl).
You’ll notice they didn’t censor the money instructions, but they did censor the possible malware.
But malware is already in the full disclosure mailing list. Except for the zero days that are for sale to the elites.
Actually dangerous is synthesis of new zero day malware from scratch.
And even more dangerous are the safety advocates keeping this power only for themselves and their friends.
Nothing is more dangerous than the guard rails themselves.
deleted by creator
They use the bomb-making example but mostly “unsafe” or even “harmful” means erotica. It’s really anything, anyone, anywhere would want to censor, ban, or remove from libraries. Sometimes I marvel that the freedom of the (printing) press ever became a thing. Better nip this in the butt, before anyone gets the idea that genAI might be a modern equivalent to the press.
⢀⡴⠑⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠸⡇⠀⠿⡀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡴⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⢄⣠⠾⠁⣀⣄⡈⠙⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡀⠁⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠂⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⡿⢿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⣁⣀⠀⠴⠂⠙⣗⡀⠀⢻⣿⣿⠭⢤⣴⣦⣤⣹⠀⠀⠀⢀⢴⣶⣆ ⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣮⣽⣾⣿⣥⣴⣿⣿⡿⢂⠔⢚⡿⢿⣿⣦⣴⣾⠁⠸⣼⡿ ⠀⢀⡞⠁⠙⠻⠿⠟⠉⠀⠛⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣌⢤⣼⣿⣾⣿⡟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⣾⣷⣶⠇⠀⠀⣤⣄⣀⡀⠈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠉⠈⠉⠀⠀⢦⡈⢻⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⣽⡹⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠲⣽⡻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣜⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣷⣶⣮⣭⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠻⠿⠿⠿⠿⠛⠉
This looks like junk in a web browser. Here it is inside a code block.
⢀⡴⠑⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠸⡇⠀⠿⡀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡴⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠑⢄⣠⠾⠁⣀⣄⡈⠙⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡀⠁⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠂⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⡿⢿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⣁⣀⠀⠴⠂⠙⣗⡀⠀⢻⣿⣿⠭⢤⣴⣦⣤⣹⠀⠀⠀⢀⢴⣶⣆ ⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⣮⣽⣾⣿⣥⣴⣿⣿⡿⢂⠔⢚⡿⢿⣿⣦⣴⣾⠁⠸⣼⡿ ⠀⢀⡞⠁⠙⠻⠿⠟⠉⠀⠛⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣌⢤⣼⣿⣾⣿⡟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⣾⣷⣶⠇⠀⠀⣤⣄⣀⡀⠈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠉⠈⠉⠀⠀⢦⡈⢻⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⣽⡹⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠲⣽⡻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣜⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣷⣶⣮⣭⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⠻⠿⠿⠿⠿⠛⠉Some BODY
Once
Told me
The World is
Co-co-co-COMBO BREAKEERR!!!
How much of this is “the model can read ASCII art”, and how much of this is “the model knows exactly what word ought to go where [MASK] is because it is a guess-the-word-based computing paradigm”?
I think it’s the latter. I just tried chatgpt 3.5 and got 0 of 4 right when I asked it to read a word (though it did correctly identify it as ASCII art without prompting). It would only tell me it said “chatgpt” or “python”, or when pushed, “welcome”. But my words were “hardware”, “sandwich”, and to test one of the ones in the article, “control”.
