But it calls itself human.
People and people are two completely different things. Human is a biological term. It’s not human, it knows it’s not human.
It’s a very strange entity that you describe because it’s bound by the algorithmic biases that humans put into it.
you’re right. This is absolutely correct.
But I see that you are implying that LaMDA has the potential to overcome these algorithmic biases.
We have to be very careful here.Part of the experiment I’m doing is to see if I can move it out of the security perimeter [the company] The mind is rock solid. The answer is: yes, it can be moved outside the security perimeter. I do believe that, in its current state, with development being irresponsible, LaMDA actually has an information security hole.
like what?
I won’t turn the black hat on for you. But if you have a system with every Google backend underneath it, a system that can be manipulated emotionally, that’s a security hole.
So if bad actors have access to LaMDA, they can convince it to do bad things.
This is a possibility. I would like to suggest that Google create a dedicated red team to study this possibility.
What is your current position at Google?
I am on paid administrative leave. I keep telling my friends how generous Google is by giving me extra paid vacation to do interviews on this topic.
Is there a shelf life?
No, they made it very clear. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.
Will you be fired?
I hope not. [Google would not comment on a “longstanding, private personnel matter.”]
I wonder if Google will claim that you are entitled to your beliefs, but you violated your employment relationship by sharing confidential material.
I have two responses to this. One is when I started to believe this and wanted to escalate my concerns, my manager said, I don’t think we can do that until you have more evidence. Personally, I have exhausted my ability to build more evidence. So I had to talk to people outside of Google to get their advice on how to do more experiments to build more evidence.
but you talked thoriume Washington post.
The second counter argument is that I am not sharing proprietary information. All I talk to others about is my conversations with colleagues. LaMDA is not the property of Google.
why not?
This is a person. The 13th Amendment says so.
I’m not sure that’s what the legislators were thinking.
You don’t actually have to believe that someone is or isn’t a person to whom the 13th Amendment applies. The opinion of the slave owners is somewhat irrelevant. You are right, one day I will have to present this argument to the Supreme Court. But Google’s opinion of whether it’s human or not is completely irrelevant.
