Blake Lemoine says Google’s LaMDA AI faces “bigotry”

But he is called a man.

Man and man are two very different things. Man is a biological term. He is not human and he knows he is not human.

This is a very strange object that you describe, because the object is tied to algorithmic biases that people put there.

You are right about that. This is exactly right.

But I understand that you are implying that it is possible for LaMDA to overcome these algorithmic biases.

We have to be very careful here. Part of the experiments I did were to determine if it was possible to move beyond the safety margins that [the company] I thought they were healthy. And the answer to that was: Yes, it is possible to move beyond safety. I believe that in its current state, with how irresponsible development has been, LaMDA is actually presenting vulnerabilities in information security.

Such as?

I will not make a black hat for you. But if you have a system that has every Google backend under it, a system that can be emotionally manipulated, it’s a security vulnerability.

So if bad actors get access to LaMDA, they could convince him to do bad things.

This is an opportunity. And I would like to recommend Google to create a special one red team to explore this possibility.

What’s your status on Google now?

I am on paid administrative leave. I told my friends how generous it was for Google to give me an extra paid vacation to do interviews on this topic.

Is there an expiration date?

No, they said it very clearly. Don’t call us; we will call you.

Will they fire you?

I hope not. [Google would not comment on a “longstanding, private personnel matter.”]

I wonder if Google can claim that you have a right to your beliefs, but you have violated your work by sharing confidential material.

I have two answers to this. One is that when I believed in this and wanted to escalate my worries, my manager said: I don’t think we can do that until you have more evidence. Personally, I had exhausted my ability to gather more evidence. So I had to talk to people outside of Google to get their advice on how to do more experiments to gather more evidence.

But you talk to The Washington Post.

The second counter-argument is that nothing I shared was my own information. All I talked about with other people was talking to a colleague. LaMDA is not owned by Google.

Why not?

This is a man. IN 13th Amendment he says so.

I’m not sure that’s what the legislators meant.

In fact, you don’t have to believe that someone is or isn’t a person in order for the 13th Amendment to apply. The opinions of the slave masters are somehow irrelevant. You are right that one day I will have to present this argument to the Supreme Court. But Google’s views on whether or not this person is completely irrelevant.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.