4 ms·
It's not about honesty vs. political correctness, it is about safety. There's real concern that the model can cause harm to humans, in a variety of ways, which
by adamhp 3y ago
It's not about honesty vs. political correctness, it is about safety. There's real concern that the model can cause harm to humans, in a variety of ways, which is and should be unethical. If we have to argue about that in 2023, that's concerning.
- lynx23 3y agoThe "It is for your own safety" argument was already bogus years ago. Bringing it back up in the context of AI and claiming this is something we shouldn't even discuss is a half-assed attempt to shut up critics. Just because something is about "children" or "safety" doesnt automatically end the argument there. Actually, these are mostly strawman arguments.
- adamhp 3y agoI'm not trying to shut up critics, just the morons calling ChatGPT "woke".
- galleywest200 3y agoWho said it was "for your own" and not the safety of others you impact with your AI work?
- nonethewiser 3y agoIts to make it less offensive. Not prevent it from taking over the world.
- jazzyjackson 3y ago"brand safety"
- _zoltan_ 3y agoThat's just not true. Treat adults as adults, please. You're not everybody's babysitter and neither are the sf bros.
- lynx23 3y agoThanks for writing this. Mentally healthy adults need to point this out more often, so that this patronizing-attitude-from-the-USA eventually finds an end to its manipulative tactics.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago[flagged]
- _zoltan_ 3y ago[flagged]
- lynx23 3y agoSo, when I see a video from the USA and it beeps every few seconds, I guess that nonesense has also been "implanted" by foreign wealth? Sorry, I don't buy your explanation. Puritanism is puritanism, and you have so much of that over there that it is almost hilarious when watched from the outside.
- trimethylpurine 3y agoBeeps? Censorship is literally illegal here. If a filmmaker chooses to "beep" something it's the filmmaker's choice. Are you going to force them not to do that? That sounds counter to your objective. Also, I've never met a "Puritan." But I've seen Pulp Fiction and countless other graphic American films that seem to have de-Puritanized the rest of the world, last I checked. I'm sorry all your country lets you watch is Disney. You may want to check with the censorship board over there to see if they will give you a pass to watch the vast majority of American film that you're missing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- adamhp 3y agoTreat adults as adults? You act like the user base for this are a handful of completely benevolent people. It's getting over a billion monthly visits. It is naive to think that OpenAI should take no steps towards making it safe.
- emptyfile 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- caeril 3y agoAI safety should be properly concerned with not becoming a paperclip maximizer. This is a concern completely orthogonal to the way alignment is being done now, which is to spare as many precious human feelings as possible. I don't know what's worse, being turned into grey goo by a malicious AGI, or being turned into a five year old to protect my precious fragile feelings by an "aligned" AGI.
- bee_rider 3y agoI know it is rhetorical, but I mean… the former is obviously worse. And the fact that not doing it is a very high priority should excuse some behavior that would otherwise seem overly cautious. It isn’t clear (to me, although I am fairly uninformed) that making these chatbots more polite has really moved the needle either direction on the grey goo, though.
- adamhp 3y agoOne of the most widely used novel AI technology companies has a vested interest in public safety, if not only for the sheer business reasons of branding. People are complaining about the steps that Open AI is taking towards alignment. Sam Altman has spoken at length about how difficult that task truly is, and is obviously aware that "alignment" isn't objective or even at all similar across different cultures. What should be painfully obvious to all the smart people on Hacker News is that this technology has very high potential to cause material harm to many human beings. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't continue to develop it. I'm arguing that these people complaining about Open AI's attempts at making it safer--i.e. "SF liberal bros are makin it woke"--are just naive, don't actually care, and just have shitty politics. It's the same people that say "keep politics out of X", but their threshold for something being political is right around everybody else's threshold for "basic empathy".