OpenAI's New Safety Hub: A Croft's Eye View on AI's Ancient Secrets (and Potential Traps!)

Raiders of the Lost Algorithms?

Right then chaps! Seems OpenAI is finally showing its hand with this 'safety evaluations hub.' They're promising to be all transparent about how their AI models behave – or misbehave more like. Testing for hallucinations jailbreaks… sounds like my Tuesday afternoon really. But the real question is are they just polishing the artifact before unleashing it on the world? Or is this a genuine attempt to keep the digital apocalypse at bay? I've seen enough ancient traps to know when something's fishy darling.

System Cards? More Like 'System Bluffs'?

Apparently they've been using these 'safety evaluations' internally all hush hush before launching their models. It's like hiding the map to El Dorado until *after* you've plundered the gold. They say they'll share metrics 'on an ongoing basis' now. But as my dear old Winston would say 'The proof is in the pudding Miss Croft.' Let's see if this transparency lasts longer than my patience with double crossing tomb raiders.

Snapshot or Smoke Screen?

OpenAI admits this 'hub' is just a 'snapshot' of their safety efforts. A snapshot! That's like saying you've explored a tomb because you peeked through the keyhole. They claim it doesn't reflect their full safety efforts. Well colour me unimpressed. Are they hiding something behind a carefully curated facade? I suspect there's more to this story than meets the eye and I intend to find it. 'I make my own luck.'

Prioritizing Products Over People… Again?

Now here's a juicy bit. CNBC reports that these AI companies are focusing on churning out products rather than ensuring they won't turn into digital Skynet. Industry experts are 'sounding the alarm.' Honestly it's always the same story isn't it? Greed over safety innovation over ethics. It's like raiding a tomb for the treasure without reinforcing the structure. Eventually everything collapses.

The o1 Controversy: A Missed Opportunity?

Apparently OpenAI didn't run all the safety evaluations on the *final* version of their o1 model. They ran it on a 'near final' version claiming minor changes wouldn't matter. Sounds like a convenient excuse if you ask me. Their head of safety systems admits they 'missed an opportunity to more clearly explain the difference.' An opportunity? More like a strategic oversight. Or perhaps a deliberate omission? Hmm...

Meta Joins the Fray: Molecular Mysteries and Open Datasets

And speaking of other players Meta is trying to distract everyone with talk of molecular discovery and open datasets. Noble perhaps but it smacks of trying to bury bad press under a mountain of scientific jargon. They say they want to 'foster an open ecosystem.' Well I've seen 'open ecosystems' that turned out to be filled with booby traps. Let's hope this one is a little more…user friendly. Still perhaps they're trying to be different. And in my world 'Different is good!'