4 ms·
No, 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
by umvi 4y ago
No, 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.