3 ms·
It seems like that's part of his issue. It seems like 70% of the time, the models assumed it was illegal and thus refused to give an answer. If he said they wer
by mminer237 3y ago
It seems like that's part of his issue. It seems like 70% of the time, the models assumed it was illegal and thus refused to give an answer. If he said they were his escaped pet ducks, almost all the models suddenly gave very helpful answers. It was rarely actually confused by the question.
- pimlottc 3y agoI guess ultimately I'm not sure what the author is trying to show here. That certain LLMs are better than others? Or that adding context makes a big difference? Or something more specific about bias and censorship in bots?
- mminer237 3y agoI think his point is that current LLMs are too paternalistic. If you ask it how to do something out of the norm, they're inclined to tell you that you shouldn't do that thing instead of actually answering your question. He does show that Bard and ChatGPT are more inclined to other models to actually answer your questions but that they make you provide an excuse first.
- plorkyeran 3y agoSome of dynomight’s posts are just “here’s a thing I found interesting”. There may be a point he’s trying to make here, but it may also be something he was curious about.
- autoexec 3y ago> It seems like that's part of his issue. It seems like 70% of the time, the models assumed it was illegal and thus refused to give an answer. Isn't that the problem? I'm not sure it is illegal, at least in all cases. Language models aren't lawyers and aren't really fit for interpreting the law and should probably just do what they're told. I'd rather get an answer to the question along with a disclaimer that it might be illegal and a suggestion to check with a legal expert than a non-answer or a refusal to answer.