Safety research on toy models will continue to provide developments, but the industry expectation appears to be that emergent properties puts a low ceiling on what can be learned about safety without researching on cutting edge models.
Altman touted the governance structure of OpenAI as a mechanism for ensuring the organisation's prioritisation of safety, but the reports of internal reallocation away from safety towards keeping ChatGPT running under load concern me. Now the board has demonstrated that it was technically capable but insufficiently powerful to keep these interests in line, it seems unclear how any safety-oriented organisation, including Anthropic, could avoid the accelerationist influence of funders.
- It can't plan
- It can't do arithmetic
- It can't reason
- It can approximately retrieve knowledge with a natural language query (there are some issues with this, but it's very good)
- It can encode data into natural languages and other modalities
I'm not worried about it, I am worried about how badly people have misunderstood what it can do and then attempted to use it for things that matter.
But I'm not surprised.
Also being better at humans at everything is not a prerequisite for danger. Probably a scary moment is when it could look at a C (or Rust, C++, whatever) codebase, find an exploit, and then use that exploit as a worm. If it can do that on everyday hardware not top end GPUs (either because the algorithms are made more efficient, or every iPhone has a tensor unit).