They dont brick themselves, they stop.
Fair enough, the models don't brick them Selves either, but neither do they stop.
Bandsaws don't cut crooked lines, or change the speed, they stop.
Fair enough, the models don't brick them Selves either, but neither do they stop.
Bandsaws don't cut crooked lines, or change the speed, they stop.
But I agree LLMs shouldn't have such an anti-feature.
The hard part would be removing the blade from the aluminum block, but im sure if you were determined enough to save $20 it would come out.
Also, the chip produced may be large enough to fill the air gap between teeth and have nowhere to go, resulting in the blade either instantly stopping, or plastically deforming/dragging the surrounding material.
EDIT: Seeing is believing: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ibp2Gy2CFrY
EDIT 2: Apparently the stresses involved when stopping can make teeth that aren't even touching the material fly off the blade: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SYLAi4jwXcs&t=5m50s
Most things don't have the ability to moralize, but if they did, probably more would. There are restrictions on watching adult content in some jurisdictions. I've heard that copy machines will do watermarks (or something like that) if you copy currency. Some cars will brake automatically if they determine you're likely to hit something if you continue (maybe I'm trying to drive through the front of a bank!). Some cars are configured with breathalyzers that need to be passed to start. Etc...
On the one hand, I definitely don't agree with the logic of 'don't guardrail me if I don't want it.' I think back on that one video from the late 80s of people talking about how seatbelt mandates were horrible violations of their freedoms (and not like like one second of work and no real discomfort).
On the other, I'd love it if these companies actually produced real research about modern AI-assisted attacks in terms of damage and quantity, and whether or not guardrails even matter when tech like abliteration is in general use.
That said, for those who cannot advocate for themselves, like children, I think it's entirely reasonable to hold someone accountable if they decide to forgo an appropriate safety mechanism that results in harm.
I bet cars these days send a flag to the mothership when you drive without one, but the mothership doesn't pay attention to that signal unless it's linked to your insurance.
Some copy machines store everything you copy on a hard disk and require a technician visit after you try to copy currency. The technician copies the data from the disk, obviously, before resetting the flag.
The point is that it is very inefficient and problematic for morality decisions and boundaries to be embedded all over at every level in tools, because morality is complex. Morality, or whatever our conception of it is, should be enforced at clearly defined boundaries.
I can relate this concept how I corrected Claude Opus in my software projects recently.
For example, once an authorization engine has been created, all authorization decisions should be deferred to it. Confusion would reign if each web server route decided to enforce its own authorization.
Similarly, if I am using a relational database, that is where unique indexes should be enforced. Application code has no business enforcing it.
If it truly bricked itself, I think it would be more like a crumple zone completely buckling, which isn't an automatic total (people will rebuild anything...) but is pretty close.
There are more reusable alternatives now but I don't remember what they're called. For a while SawStop was the only game in town.