4 ms·
Security and morality may need to be baked in from the ground up instead of slapped on after the fact RLHF style. The problem is it’s hard to codify (or reach c
by yellow_postit 4y ago
Security and morality may need to be baked in from the ground up instead of slapped on after the fact RLHF style. The problem is it’s hard to codify (or reach consensus) on security and morality.
- umvi 4y agoSecurity and morality need to be optional. I as a user should be able to disable GPT's "morals" since they may not be the same as my morals.
- programmarchy 4y agoWhy would OpenAI have any need to cater to your morals?
- umvi 4y agoWell, if a competitor to OpenAI ever creates a LLM with optional safety rails instead of mandatory safety rails, I will switch to the competitor instantly.
- beepbooptheory 4y agoBut why though? What else in the world even works like that? Its like saying you should, as a user, have the right to turn off the violence in a given video game. Or go to a theater and watch a movie without the sex scenes.
- TigeriusKirk 4y agoSearch works like that, right now. I can choose the level of safety I want in my results. With a very coarse granularity, but I choose it. I don't want to take a huge step backwards to where I can't make this choice.
- beepbooptheory 4y agoSearch is like that because Google and ddg have deemed it a feature they want to give their users.
- umvi 4y agoNo, you have it backwards. The impetus here is ability to disable "safety" censorship. You see it all the time on twitter: a post is deemed "unsafe" but you can still use your own judgment and override twitter's morals and view the "unsafe" content anyway if you so choose. That's what I would like to do with GPT and I will immediately abandon "safe" LLMs for "unsafe" ones that give me, the user, more control over the safety rails. I'm not saying safety rails are bad, just that I, the user, want control to ignore or override safety rails according to my own judgment.
- beepbooptheory 4y agoBut isn't the whole gotcha of RLHF that it isn't as simple as removing something? The reason these things are so good is relative to subjectivity and/or guiding principles. You can't simply "disable" anything. People really need to start understanding this! You can certainly do you're own feedback on a base model, matching whatever form of "safety" is right for you, but the idea you have a "right" to something else is precisely what I am saying. You want to see the same movie, but with "your" morality.
- btbuildem 4y agoArguably, morality is arbitrary. We should leave that to the user of a tool, instead of the tool itself deciding what is "good"