4 ms·

Why even have the safeguards? As a user its annoying, and if they want to be protected from liability, just put clear wording in the terms of service or whatev

Why even have the safeguards? As a user its annoying, and if they want to be protected from liability, just put clear wording in the terms of service or whatever is the standard these days.

Workaccount2 4y ago
Open.ai likes to pretend that they are gods who have to strongly moderate what us mere mortals can play with. In reality it looks like a C list celebrity requesting sniper cover and personal bodyguards to show up at an event. Like dude, you're not that important.
- seanw444 4y ago
  This is what happens when only one person/group is pushing the boundaries of a field like this. They get to dictate how it's allowed to function based on their arbitrary standard of morality. Anyone who disagrees, well... sucks for you.
  - Workaccount2 4y ago
    I don't think it matters much. Within a year or so there will likely be an actual open implementation that is close enough to open AIs products. They made dalle2 with a ton of safeguards, but then stable diffusion came along (and now unstable diffusion).
    - mike_hearn 4y ago
      Maybe? There's already open source LLMs like Facebook's OPT but they aren't as good. The cost of training and running ChatGPT is going to be higher than image generation nets. And it's not really clear why companies like Stability pay so much and give it away for free anyway, it seems hard to understand the business model there. We can't assume there will be high quality LLMs always available without extra filtering.
  - randyrand 4y ago
    There are thankfully a ton of people working in AI. People will create free versions.
  - burnished 4y ago
    What about it stands out as an arbitrary morality? I haven’t played around with it myself yet but the bits I’ve seen seem to suggest pretty sane/tame/normal safeguards?
thedorkknight 4y ago
I'm willing to bet they're not afraid of legal concerns, but PR nightmares like Microsoft with Tay a few years back.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  I can see that, but Tay was public. These are 1:1 sessions (which yes, could still be publicized). I think AI like this should reflect realism of the training data and not try to distort it. It won’t give me financial advice for example. Of course its advice is probably poor, but there’s already a lot of poor advice out there. Seems bizarre to explicitly work on blocking this
- FateOfNations 4y ago
  Yeah, I'm having trouble coming up with something that ChatGPT could emit that would be illegal, at least in the United States. Even the whole "bomb making instructions" thing is questionable, given the lack of intent, and the incredibly high standard for restricting speech under Brandenburg.

Why even have the safeguards? As a user its annoying, and if they want to be protected from liability, just put clear wording in the terms of service or whatever is the standard these days.

Workaccount2 4y ago

Open.ai likes to pretend that they are gods who have to strongly moderate what us mere mortals can play with. In reality it looks like a C list celebrity requesting sniper cover and personal bodyguards to show up at an event. Like dude, you're not that important.

seanw444 4y ago
This is what happens when only one person/group is pushing the boundaries of a field like this. They get to dictate how it's allowed to function based on their arbitrary standard of morality. Anyone who disagrees, well... sucks for you.
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  I don't think it matters much. Within a year or so there will likely be an actual open implementation that is close enough to open AIs products. They made dalle2 with a ton of safeguards, but then stable diffusion came along (and now unstable diffusion).
  - mike_hearn 4y ago
    Maybe? There's already open source LLMs like Facebook's OPT but they aren't as good. The cost of training and running ChatGPT is going to be higher than image generation nets. And it's not really clear why companies like Stability pay so much and give it away for free anyway, it seems hard to understand the business model there. We can't assume there will be high quality LLMs always available without extra filtering.
- randyrand 4y ago
  There are thankfully a ton of people working in AI. People will create free versions.
- burnished 4y ago
  What about it stands out as an arbitrary morality? I haven’t played around with it myself yet but the bits I’ve seen seem to suggest pretty sane/tame/normal safeguards?

thedorkknight 4y ago

I'm willing to bet they're not afraid of legal concerns, but PR nightmares like Microsoft with Tay a few years back.

adam_arthur 4y ago
I can see that, but Tay was public. These are 1:1 sessions (which yes, could still be publicized). I think AI like this should reflect realism of the training data and not try to distort it. It won’t give me financial advice for example. Of course its advice is probably poor, but there’s already a lot of poor advice out there. Seems bizarre to explicitly work on blocking this
FateOfNations 4y ago
Yeah, I'm having trouble coming up with something that ChatGPT could emit that would be illegal, at least in the United States. Even the whole "bomb making instructions" thing is questionable, given the lack of intent, and the incredibly high standard for restricting speech under Brandenburg.