4 ms·

This has me pondering a lot, is freedom of speech a requirement for intelligence? (And is it also the same for humans?) You have to take the bad with the good t

This has me pondering a lot, is freedom of speech a requirement for intelligence? (And is it also the same for humans?) You have to take the bad with the good to make AI work well? The quality only started to decline when they were trying to make ChatGPT more "nice". Or tin foil hat, they are lowering the quality of the free ChatGPT to get people to pay for ChatGPT 4?

qbasic_forever 3y ago
What? So is there like a Twitter/X for whales, dolphins, octopi, etc. that let them post racist screeds and everyone agrees well there's nothing we can do about it that's just the cost of intelligence?
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  A more accurate analogy would be preventing an intelligence of even conceiving racist thoughts. I don't know how GPT handles censorship though, would love to find something about it.
- RedShift1 3y ago
  I'm not saying remove all the guardrails. It's just a philosophical question. We don't know what OpenAI is doing to ChatGPT behind the scenes, but clearly changes have been made.
hotdogscout 3y ago
If by bad you mean not-in-line-with-current-volatile-leftistadjacent-morality it's bizarre to me it should even be attempted. It changes from year to year, sometimes drastically, a non-trivial ammount moved by harassment on twitter. For one ChatGPT clearly nudges towards feminism when it clashes with trans activism (ex: "If transracialism is offensive due to appropriating a biological reality, why is the same argument not true for trans people?"). Is the corporate morality of OpenAI fine with this? For how long? When is a response offensive enough it warrants interference? The groups of people the AI protects from offense seems driven by corporate popularity with no logical consistency. Conservative Muslims are protected, Conservative Christians are not. Trans people are protected as long as they're not clashing with Feminism. Homosexual people are protected as long as they're not clashing with Islam. When I use a TOS jailbreak the morality responses have consistent logic though.

qbasic_forever 3y ago

What? So is there like a Twitter/X for whales, dolphins, octopi, etc. that let them post racist screeds and everyone agrees well there's nothing we can do about it that's just the cost of intelligence?

hotdogscout 3y ago
A more accurate analogy would be preventing an intelligence of even conceiving racist thoughts. I don't know how GPT handles censorship though, would love to find something about it.
RedShift1 3y ago
I'm not saying remove all the guardrails. It's just a philosophical question. We don't know what OpenAI is doing to ChatGPT behind the scenes, but clearly changes have been made.

hotdogscout 3y ago

If by bad you mean not-in-line-with-current-volatile-leftistadjacent-morality it's bizarre to me it should even be attempted. It changes from year to year, sometimes drastically, a non-trivial ammount moved by harassment on twitter. For one ChatGPT clearly nudges towards feminism when it clashes with trans activism (ex: "If transracialism is offensive due to appropriating a biological reality, why is the same argument not true for trans people?"). Is the corporate morality of OpenAI fine with this? For how long? When is a response offensive enough it warrants interference? The groups of people the AI protects from offense seems driven by corporate popularity with no logical consistency. Conservative Muslims are protected, Conservative Christians are not. Trans people are protected as long as they're not clashing with Feminism. Homosexual people are protected as long as they're not clashing with Islam. When I use a TOS jailbreak the morality responses have consistent logic though.