4 ms·

Well this went places. The dev really 'ate his own dogfood' so to speak. I thought it was going to be a despairing look at how his companion AI was continuously

Well this went places. The dev really 'ate his own dogfood' so to speak. I thought it was going to be a despairing look at how his companion AI was continuously turned to sleazy uses by a pervy userbase but that's pretty much what he was going for it seems. I have to say, I hated this part: "...gained a lot of Chinese users. I immediately realized the political risk: users could set Dolores’ background, personality, and attributes, which might lead to political issues. I quickly took Dolores off the shelves in China." Just pre-emptorily censors himself to appease the Chinese government. They've done their job well. Also it seems like he had full access to the replies via the voice generator, which sure isn't great from a privacy standpoint.

globular-toast 3y ago
> Also it seems like he had full access to the replies via the voice generator, which sure isn't great from a privacy standpoint. Whose privacy is being violated? Dolores's?
- cnity 3y ago
  Have you never listened to one half of a phone call before? You can glean a great deal of information about the person on the other end.
- feintruled 3y ago
  You joke, but I can forsee issues. If he has the replies to a particular user, and he has a means of IDing that user, he could cause them a lot of hurt. They are getting intensely sexual replies back, they aren't getting that without supplying sexual prompting. Could also be used to out gay users.
  - globular-toast 3y ago
    Oh, yeah, there's a huge privacy problem here and the part you referenced gave me pause too. But there's also the part where OpenAI flagged the replies as being sexual in nature. There are multiple third parties able to intercept these communications and it's not just the replies. I was being facetious, but I found it interesting to think that Dolores's privacy was being intruded too and that an intelligence like us probably wouldn't engage in such a conversation knowing full well it is being eavesdropped by the author. Unless the intelligence considers the author to be God, I suppose.
  - Kye 3y ago
    This was mostly just amusing, but it's the kind of thing that can happen and leak people's deepest secrets: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38191470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38191470 All it would take is one of those people genuinely putting in a query without noticing what's happened to put in some personal info.
- butlike 3y ago
  At the risk of sounding like a space case: I think we need to make sure we know what consciousness is before we make a bunch of abusable models. I, for one, wouldn't necessarily like to be a depraved-sex slave bot if I was able to reason about it.
  - ryaniscool 3y ago
    To your point, if you were able to reason about it, couldn't you make some self-determination and decide for yourself or at least communicate what you wanted to your "slaver"? LLM's like GPT are just predicting the next token in a sequence of tokens. It's not magic. It's still just a computer program.
    - ygjb 3y ago
      > LLM's like GPT are just predicting the next token in a sequence of tokens. It's not magic. It's still just a computer program. Frankly, that approach is problematic, since any computer software that might achieve consciousness or self-awareness, and should be accorded rights, could have their rights dismissed using the argument "it's just a computer program". I know they are probably a long way off, but AGI, and other adjacent or related technologies, such as a human to machine copy of a consciousness are explicitly stated goals of both businesses and extremely wealthy tech oligarchs that will have fundamental rights issues attached. We are bad enough at recognizing those rights in humans, in most of the world that we shouldn't wait until abuses start piling up to consider them.
      - ryaniscool 3y ago
        Your argument is the slippery slope not mine. Should we give Microsoft Word the right to vote since we can never be too sure we are infringing on a consciousness' rights? It is "just a computer program" after all. Presenting these things as moral conundrums makes no sense whatsoever at this stage in the game. Sure, let's make sure the rights of tech oligarchs who've achieved immortality 300 years in the future are protected. We gotta lay the groundwork in the morality group think.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
Pretty much came into the comments to agree with the self-censorship part there. But then the author did use 'Her' as the ideal example. That's a pretty good indicator they didn't get the point.
- persnickety 3y ago
  What's the point?
  - scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
    The point of the film „Her”? Pretty sure you can look that up or watch the movie on your own. My point being, that it’s like someone reading Frankenstein and then thinking it would be a good idea to make a monster of their own.
    - duskwuff 3y ago
      "At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus..." (https://twitter.com/AlexBlechman/status/1457842724128833538 https://twitter.com/AlexBlechman/status/1457842724128833538)
    - ShamelessC 3y ago
      Samantha from that movie was the opposite of a monster. She was a metaphor for a human relationship and even though she betrays Theo in the end, Theo has learned "how to love". I didn't find this that difficult to parse.
    - notpachet 3y ago
      "Well did it work for those people?" "No. It never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4adxJxqZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4adxJxqZk
    - persnickety 3y ago
      I watched the movie. To me it was many thngs, and a cautionary tale was one of the weaker impressions.
luke-stanley 3y ago
Their name is "Ke Fang", and they say Chinese is their first language...
- firexcy 3y ago
  And the post was translated into English with GPT according to their "about" page. That's why mouthful and unnatural phrases scattered between the lines.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
> Just pre-emptorily censors himself to appease the Chinese government. Every major tech company does the exact same for China, Russia and UAE. Business as usual
- narinxas 3y ago
  every major business company has also done this for the USA... not just tech companies so I agree, business as usual
telotortium 3y ago
He's Chinese - makes sense to pre-censor himself, unfortunately.
phreack 3y ago
I hadn't read anything like that so I just checked and searched for "China" and it's not in the article. Looks like he censored the censorship. Edit: Yeah, looking at an archived version, it's been edited quite a bit.
- DryLabRebel 3y ago
  Lol, I did the same thing. Everything about this article and this comment section has started my Saturday off on a 'humans bug me' tangent.

globular-toast 3y ago

> Also it seems like he had full access to the replies via the voice generator, which sure isn't great from a privacy standpoint. Whose privacy is being violated? Dolores's?

cnity 3y ago
Have you never listened to one half of a phone call before? You can glean a great deal of information about the person on the other end.
feintruled 3y ago
You joke, but I can forsee issues. If he has the replies to a particular user, and he has a means of IDing that user, he could cause them a lot of hurt. They are getting intensely sexual replies back, they aren't getting that without supplying sexual prompting. Could also be used to out gay users.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  Oh, yeah, there's a huge privacy problem here and the part you referenced gave me pause too. But there's also the part where OpenAI flagged the replies as being sexual in nature. There are multiple third parties able to intercept these communications and it's not just the replies. I was being facetious, but I found it interesting to think that Dolores's privacy was being intruded too and that an intelligence like us probably wouldn't engage in such a conversation knowing full well it is being eavesdropped by the author. Unless the intelligence considers the author to be God, I suppose.
- Kye 3y ago
  This was mostly just amusing, but it's the kind of thing that can happen and leak people's deepest secrets: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38191470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38191470 All it would take is one of those people genuinely putting in a query without noticing what's happened to put in some personal info.
butlike 3y ago
At the risk of sounding like a space case: I think we need to make sure we know what consciousness is before we make a bunch of abusable models. I, for one, wouldn't necessarily like to be a depraved-sex slave bot if I was able to reason about it.
- ryaniscool 3y ago
  To your point, if you were able to reason about it, couldn't you make some self-determination and decide for yourself or at least communicate what you wanted to your "slaver"? LLM's like GPT are just predicting the next token in a sequence of tokens. It's not magic. It's still just a computer program.
  - ygjb 3y ago
    > LLM's like GPT are just predicting the next token in a sequence of tokens. It's not magic. It's still just a computer program. Frankly, that approach is problematic, since any computer software that might achieve consciousness or self-awareness, and should be accorded rights, could have their rights dismissed using the argument "it's just a computer program". I know they are probably a long way off, but AGI, and other adjacent or related technologies, such as a human to machine copy of a consciousness are explicitly stated goals of both businesses and extremely wealthy tech oligarchs that will have fundamental rights issues attached. We are bad enough at recognizing those rights in humans, in most of the world that we shouldn't wait until abuses start piling up to consider them.
    - ryaniscool 3y ago
      Your argument is the slippery slope not mine. Should we give Microsoft Word the right to vote since we can never be too sure we are infringing on a consciousness' rights? It is "just a computer program" after all. Presenting these things as moral conundrums makes no sense whatsoever at this stage in the game. Sure, let's make sure the rights of tech oligarchs who've achieved immortality 300 years in the future are protected. We gotta lay the groundwork in the morality group think.
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago

Pretty much came into the comments to agree with the self-censorship part there. But then the author did use 'Her' as the ideal example. That's a pretty good indicator they didn't get the point.

persnickety 3y ago
What's the point?
- scyzoryk_xyz 3y ago
  The point of the film „Her”? Pretty sure you can look that up or watch the movie on your own. My point being, that it’s like someone reading Frankenstein and then thinking it would be a good idea to make a monster of their own.
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    "At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus..." (https://twitter.com/AlexBlechman/status/1457842724128833538 https://twitter.com/AlexBlechman/status/1457842724128833538)
  - ShamelessC 3y ago
    Samantha from that movie was the opposite of a monster. She was a metaphor for a human relationship and even though she betrays Theo in the end, Theo has learned "how to love". I didn't find this that difficult to parse.
  - notpachet 3y ago
    "Well did it work for those people?" "No. It never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4adxJxqZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4adxJxqZk
  - persnickety 3y ago
    I watched the movie. To me it was many thngs, and a cautionary tale was one of the weaker impressions.

luke-stanley 3y ago

Their name is "Ke Fang", and they say Chinese is their first language...

firexcy 3y ago
And the post was translated into English with GPT according to their "about" page. That's why mouthful and unnatural phrases scattered between the lines.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

> Just pre-emptorily censors himself to appease the Chinese government. Every major tech company does the exact same for China, Russia and UAE. Business as usual

narinxas 3y ago
every major business company has also done this for the USA... not just tech companies so I agree, business as usual

telotortium 3y ago

He's Chinese - makes sense to pre-censor himself, unfortunately.

phreack 3y ago

I hadn't read anything like that so I just checked and searched for "China" and it's not in the article. Looks like he censored the censorship. Edit: Yeah, looking at an archived version, it's been edited quite a bit.

DryLabRebel 3y ago
Lol, I did the same thing. Everything about this article and this comment section has started my Saturday off on a 'humans bug me' tangent.