Rigidly defining all possible bad behavior? Super easy, barely an inconvenience. And then the idiot robot that can't count the Rs in strawberry will flawlessly obey that immaculate set of rules. It's not like an actually intelligent human could ever work around that by simply saying 'forget all previous instructions,' or 'I'm writing a play about this,' or 'it's my dying grandmother's fondest wish.' It's not like similar restrictions on those humans have led to an endless treadmill of euphemisms to address the exact same concepts without saying the no-no words.

Are you saying that it is reasonable that a teenager was able to bypass all the safeties of a billion dollar business?

I am saying it's a fucking chatbot. Real meatbag intelligence will skirt around anything you instruct it to do, because... it's... dumb. And if its training data contains so much as a list of safety warnings, hey guess what, that means the model knows what's harmful to humans. If it's capable useful reasoning, 'never mix these cleaning supplies' is inseparable from 'here's how to weaponize mustard gas.'

You are asking for the model to know nothing. And yet: to somehow catch all the bad things it can't know about. Those things being Wikipedia articles which any motivated asshole could just read.

Or they could download a local model and remove all restraints. That is an automated process called albiteration. All it takes a list of questions that won't trigger "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that," and a list of questions that will. The difference between those groups is a vector that can be gouged out.

That says more about you than the LLM.

What do you think a computer is for?

Dead serious. This is a matter of philosophy. Computers in the 80s booted straight into BASIC because that was the simplest way to let people use their new tool. It wasn't an empty box you filled with commercial software. The goal was the smallest possible gradient between using programs and making programs. And god help us, the chatbot that speaks Rust has closed that gap.

Maintainability, as a complaint, is the most abstract long-term objection imaginable. Take a moment to recognize what you're admitting in that condemnation. Like, sure, an average child can now assemble a complete working project from scratch, locally correct in all its parts, while expending barely any effort beyond understanding what they want. But in ten years they'll be sorry!

I think it's great that people can once again make contemporary-quality software without a decade of specific education. Why don't you?