Dwyer declines to quantify risk; Menin pushes back
Dwyer says she does not know and that it does not matter whether the chance is 1% or 20%, since none is acceptable. Menin calls the answer flippant and compares it unfavorably to pharmaceutical safety standards.
I don't know.
I also don't think it matters whether it's 1% or 10% or 20% chance that something catastrophic will go wrong.
None of these levels is remotely acceptable.
We should not train models that we cannot make an extremely strong case that we can keep under human control.
I'm sorry, but to say you don't know and it doesn't matter is flippant at best.
This idea that if you're a pharmaceutical company and you're developing a drug and you say, I don't know if it's going to kill people, I honestly am incredulous at that answer.
I would say that the percentage chance doesn't matter.
What matters is the commitment to safety.
And that is what OpenAI is committed to doing.
We evaluate our models for a wide range of threats, from cybersecurity to child safety.
We work with a robust set of third-party evaluators and red teamers.
And we work with the federal government to assess those national security and catastrophic risks that you are referencing.
So we take safety very seriously, and our focus is on ensuring that when we release a model into the world, we believe it to be safe.