5 ms·

>pampering the bottom 5% whiny dregs of society There's really no need to be so hostile. Do you complain that disney doesn't make hardcore porn too? Like it or

>pampering the bottom 5% whiny dregs of society There's really no need to be so hostile. Do you complain that disney doesn't make hardcore porn too? Like it or not claude and all these other ai's that are censored do have a place in the world. And they do serve more than the "bottom 5%". At the bare minimum they serve more than the bottom 5% when it comes to capital which is definitely more important from a company pov. There are plenty of uncensored models out there to play with. They aren't quite there yet but they're decent enough and slowly getting better. I highly doubt they will ever have the same reach as claude, chatgpt or bard. The barrier of entry is too high for the normal person and even for some technical people. I'd love to be proven wrong but my money is on the multi billion dollar cooperations. And your comment regarding the moral policing that wasn't there in the early days of the internet is just ridiculous. Putting aside the fact that there's nothing wrong with having a safe space where you don't have to see or read things you don't want to. The internet was a terrible place, it still is but the bad places have gotten much smaller. It didn't grow to what it is now because of all the trash that was being spewed out, it grew despite it. The only thing I don't agree with is them trying to use the government to prevent innovation but other than that I see no issues with what they're doing. Your frustration is understandable, believe me, I get it. I've tried to wrangle many AI to answer my relatively tame questions without the positivity bias and warnings that my actions may cause some sort of imagined harm. But I just make note of that behavior and move on. These policies the companies have will NEVER change as long as they keep making money. Always vote with your wallet and your time.

boredumb 3y ago
> The internet was a terrible place, it still is but the bad places have gotten much smaller I never said it was "good" or "bad" I said it would have been more vapid and silo'd, which as you seem to have conflated, that has certainly happened. That's fine but the fact you can't disable a censor on out of an API you pay for as an adult is a poor choice by these companys regardless of how much "bad" stuff we get exposed to on places we visit online.
- GenericPoster 3y ago
  But you are an adult and you don't have to support or pay for any of these products if you don't want to. It's simply a design choice. The same as if someone would choose python over c++. Maybe by your standards it's a poor choice but if it's making them money then there's no problems. There is a demand for uncensored models but its just not profitable.
  - selfhoster11 3y ago
    That's a completely nonsensical argument. OpenAI and Anthropic are THE duopolists in this market, period. Nothing else comes close on most metrics. Saying "it's simply a design choice" is like saying that wearing wooden clogs around the city is a "design choice" because the only other two companies that know how to work with more advanced materials refuse to sell you shoes because of a moral reasons.
    - GenericPoster 3y ago
      What a terrible analogy. First of all, the two best shoe companies are selling the SAME shoes to everybody, they aren't denying you service. You just don't like the color that it's being sold in. You willingly choose to wear wooden clogs and then complain that they won't sell you the shoes that they are selling to everybody else. The entitlement not just in this comment but in the entire thread is ridiculous. Secondly, they are private companies selling non-essential goods. Using their models isn't a right. If they want to lobotomize it and make it as pg13 as possible, that is their right. They aren't doing anything against the law in regards to discrimination. If you want to use their toys, you have to play by their rules. Yes they have the best toys but you don't get to cry about it and force them to change their rules. It's such a simple concept and it's hardly new.
wellthisisgreat 3y ago
> There's really no need to be so hostile. Generally I would side with anti-hostility sentiment, however in this case and at this point the intolerance towards the vocal minority that pushes the “no offensive content” narrative has be firm and the position of reason, expressed by the GP should be known and appreciated as a mainstream. With generative AI and its pace we are approaching the point of no return where those 5% dregs would be responsible for irreparable damage to society and culture at large. One thing is not engaging in conversations you know ppl may not enjoy (“be offended”). Having those shallow, uneducated attitudes embedded in the culture at source code-level is a cultural catastrophe. Nobody’s talking about showing hardcore porn to kids, the battle is for not having opaque codes built into the fabric of thought because of the cries handful of overactive Twitter users.
- consumer451 3y ago
  Sam Altman mentioned in an interview that OpenAI's understanding was that children would use ChatGPT. That was very enlightening for me as far as the safety issues.
  - selfhoster11 3y ago
    How about this: make a bloody separate safe space for kids. This should go for AI, this should go for web search (maybe), this should go for YouTube, etc. Don't force adults to the lowest common denominator of safe contents, don't make it likely that children will see something they should not.
    - consumer451 3y ago
      How has that worked out with porn?
      - selfhoster11 3y ago
        I assume you are referring to kids bypassing censorship - short of surveillance, this will be impossible. If the child chooses to access this content, that's not really stoppable. But we can prevent kids from being exposed to unsafe content accidentally by curating content available to them. The problem is, platfrom rules prevent unsafe content from being posted and watched by anyone, not just children. And that's concerning, because YouTube is the defacto public utility for video hosting in all but semantics, just like Twitter and Facebook are the defacto "digital town square" type services.

boredumb 3y ago

> The internet was a terrible place, it still is but the bad places have gotten much smaller I never said it was "good" or "bad" I said it would have been more vapid and silo'd, which as you seem to have conflated, that has certainly happened. That's fine but the fact you can't disable a censor on out of an API you pay for as an adult is a poor choice by these companys regardless of how much "bad" stuff we get exposed to on places we visit online.

GenericPoster 3y ago
But you are an adult and you don't have to support or pay for any of these products if you don't want to. It's simply a design choice. The same as if someone would choose python over c++. Maybe by your standards it's a poor choice but if it's making them money then there's no problems. There is a demand for uncensored models but its just not profitable.
- selfhoster11 3y ago
  That's a completely nonsensical argument. OpenAI and Anthropic are THE duopolists in this market, period. Nothing else comes close on most metrics. Saying "it's simply a design choice" is like saying that wearing wooden clogs around the city is a "design choice" because the only other two companies that know how to work with more advanced materials refuse to sell you shoes because of a moral reasons.
  - GenericPoster 3y ago
    What a terrible analogy. First of all, the two best shoe companies are selling the SAME shoes to everybody, they aren't denying you service. You just don't like the color that it's being sold in. You willingly choose to wear wooden clogs and then complain that they won't sell you the shoes that they are selling to everybody else. The entitlement not just in this comment but in the entire thread is ridiculous. Secondly, they are private companies selling non-essential goods. Using their models isn't a right. If they want to lobotomize it and make it as pg13 as possible, that is their right. They aren't doing anything against the law in regards to discrimination. If you want to use their toys, you have to play by their rules. Yes they have the best toys but you don't get to cry about it and force them to change their rules. It's such a simple concept and it's hardly new.

wellthisisgreat 3y ago

> There's really no need to be so hostile. Generally I would side with anti-hostility sentiment, however in this case and at this point the intolerance towards the vocal minority that pushes the “no offensive content” narrative has be firm and the position of reason, expressed by the GP should be known and appreciated as a mainstream. With generative AI and its pace we are approaching the point of no return where those 5% dregs would be responsible for irreparable damage to society and culture at large. One thing is not engaging in conversations you know ppl may not enjoy (“be offended”). Having those shallow, uneducated attitudes embedded in the culture at source code-level is a cultural catastrophe. Nobody’s talking about showing hardcore porn to kids, the battle is for not having opaque codes built into the fabric of thought because of the cries handful of overactive Twitter users.

consumer451 3y ago
Sam Altman mentioned in an interview that OpenAI's understanding was that children would use ChatGPT. That was very enlightening for me as far as the safety issues.
- selfhoster11 3y ago
  How about this: make a bloody separate safe space for kids. This should go for AI, this should go for web search (maybe), this should go for YouTube, etc. Don't force adults to the lowest common denominator of safe contents, don't make it likely that children will see something they should not.
  - consumer451 3y ago
    How has that worked out with porn?
    - selfhoster11 3y ago
      I assume you are referring to kids bypassing censorship - short of surveillance, this will be impossible. If the child chooses to access this content, that's not really stoppable. But we can prevent kids from being exposed to unsafe content accidentally by curating content available to them. The problem is, platfrom rules prevent unsafe content from being posted and watched by anyone, not just children. And that's concerning, because YouTube is the defacto public utility for video hosting in all but semantics, just like Twitter and Facebook are the defacto "digital town square" type services.