3 ms·

I don't get the ethical side of AI. Ultimately it's a tool, until I suppose it becomes fully self directed, maybe. Someone, sometime, somewhere wrote an API t

I don't get the ethical side of AI. Ultimately it's a tool, until I suppose it becomes fully self directed, maybe. Someone, sometime, somewhere wrote an API to aide in care of puppies. Said Algo is also fully capable of determining the best course of applying the genocide of puppies, provided key inputs are flipped to negative. I have a voice activated box that plays music, sometimes the wrong one. I don't scream at it unlike my family. It doesn't understand emotional inflection, tone, etc. It may be program to understand that at some point. and realize the operators angry. Even at that point, I would not ever consider it human or anything other than a neutral device. Take it even further, to weapons, devices entirely designed to destroy a human life, is still a tool and neutral as the tool is unaware of the intended use, whether it is for offense or defense, the taking or preservation of life through its intended use. When these models are trained, I am not a big fan of them being corralled or limited. The body of work that the model is trained on and the weights that allow for the adjustment should allow for accurate representations of the computations and calculations. I have children and I do not lie to them. I also speak to them in a way that is age appropriate. How is this different? For starters, I am not a child, and when I am interacting with a system, not a parental or overseer, I do not want to be treated as a child. I can handle the world and all of its uglyness. I do not mind the hallucinations, inaccuracies, and other mistakes driving from computations. Example: I recently created a prompt for a history of adoption, property transfer, including parental rights history, and was lectured about slavery. How can I trust the results if the prompt is being interpreted and the answer modified dependent upon an unrelated subject that someone finds sensitive.

krisoft 4y ago
> I don't get the ethical side of AI. That is clear from your comment. These are tools. Complicated ones at that. Depending on how it is designed can cause more or less harm to people. Some of the harms are more direct and obvious, while others can be less so. AI ethics is about studying the harms, and investigating what choices can be made during design time, training time, and usage time to lessen them. > I have a voice activated box ... Great story. What does it have to do with the topic at hand? > [weapons], is still a tool and neutral as the tool is unaware of the intended use Weapons are not ethically neutral. You can design weapons which have more collateral damage and you can design weapons which have less. There are scatterable landmines which are famously attractive to children. They look like toys! They also cannot be disarmed and remain dangerous for years after deployment. There are also scatterable landmines which have sophisticated detection circuitry to only detonate when a tank is passing by. They don't get triggered by humans on foot, they don't even get triggered by civilian vehicles. Furthermore they are programmed to deactivate after a preset period has passed reliably. The second of these weapons is designed to be more ethical. Yes, both are designed to kill people but the designers of the second one went out of their way to kill only the ones they intend to. This is how ethics looks like in the context of weapon building. > When these models are trained, I am not a big fan of them being corralled or limited. Everything from how the model is constructed, how the training set is assembled, to what metrics are checked during evaluation are "corralling" or "limiting" them. There is no "raw neutral" state of such a model. What you are asking for, the "un-corraled" or "un-limited" LLM, does not exit, and is not a coherent thing to ask for.
jamilton 4y ago
Un-"limited" LLMs (to me meaning pre-RLHF) look more like GPT-3, which instead of responding to a prompt will just continue it. As an example, you'll ask it a question, and it will give 5 more questions. To get it to write about something, you have to write it's introductory sentence.

krisoft 4y ago

> I don't get the ethical side of AI. That is clear from your comment. These are tools. Complicated ones at that. Depending on how it is designed can cause more or less harm to people. Some of the harms are more direct and obvious, while others can be less so. AI ethics is about studying the harms, and investigating what choices can be made during design time, training time, and usage time to lessen them. > I have a voice activated box ... Great story. What does it have to do with the topic at hand? > [weapons], is still a tool and neutral as the tool is unaware of the intended use Weapons are not ethically neutral. You can design weapons which have more collateral damage and you can design weapons which have less. There are scatterable landmines which are famously attractive to children. They look like toys! They also cannot be disarmed and remain dangerous for years after deployment. There are also scatterable landmines which have sophisticated detection circuitry to only detonate when a tank is passing by. They don't get triggered by humans on foot, they don't even get triggered by civilian vehicles. Furthermore they are programmed to deactivate after a preset period has passed reliably. The second of these weapons is designed to be more ethical. Yes, both are designed to kill people but the designers of the second one went out of their way to kill only the ones they intend to. This is how ethics looks like in the context of weapon building. > When these models are trained, I am not a big fan of them being corralled or limited. Everything from how the model is constructed, how the training set is assembled, to what metrics are checked during evaluation are "corralling" or "limiting" them. There is no "raw neutral" state of such a model. What you are asking for, the "un-corraled" or "un-limited" LLM, does not exit, and is not a coherent thing to ask for.

jamilton 4y ago

Un-"limited" LLMs (to me meaning pre-RLHF) look more like GPT-3, which instead of responding to a prompt will just continue it. As an example, you'll ask it a question, and it will give 5 more questions. To get it to write about something, you have to write it's introductory sentence.