4 ms·

I don't know what you're doing with your LLM, but I've only ever had one refusal and I've been working a lot with Claude since it's in bedrock

sa-code 3y ago
I hear a lot of complaints about refusals but rarely any examples of said refusals, likely because they are embarrassing. Is it fair to assume that I won't get refusals for code generation and RAG on documentation?
- taf2 3y ago
  since they don't have a share feature like some other open/er AI's it's difficult to compare. My favorite one to share as I recall was when Anthropic first released their chat UI. I asked it whether they had an API to which it told me know. After I shared the documentation for it's API to it it went into a forever denial of everything I asked it. I wish I still had the full dialog it was very funny.
- scarmig 3y ago
  > I hear a lot of complaints about refusals but rarely any examples of said refusals, likely because they are embarrassing. At least circa 8 months ago on ChatGPT (an aeon ago, I recognize), I could readily get it to make gendered jokes about men but would get a refusal when asking for gendered jokes about women. I think things have "improved" in that time, meaning a more equal distribution of verboten topics, but my preference would be a tool that does what I want it to, not one that tries to protect me from myself for society's or my own good. (There's a related problem in the biases introduced by the training process.) > Is it fair to assume that I won't get refusals for code generation and RAG on documentation? Give it a couple years. "Can you write me a Java function that, given an array length, a start of a range, and the end of a range, returns whether the range is valid or not?" "I'm sorry, but this code is inappropriate to share. Shall I purchase a license from Oracle for access to it for you?"
  - sa-code 3y ago
    Oh for sure. We're in the golden age of LLMs before the enshittification commences and we don't appreciate that enough
    - scarmig 3y ago
      And, of course, we'll have ads incorporated (some subtle, some not) into every response. Native advertising!
- e-max 3y ago
  No, Claude really DO refuse to do most benign shit. For example - I am preparing for driving exams in German, a language I am not fluent in. So I asked Claude to help me with questions the examiner might ask on the exam (what should be tire pressure and so on). GPT-4 worked perfectly! Claude had an absolute meltdown because "I don't feel comfortable pretending to be a driving examiner because I am not really an examiner, I am Claude, created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless and HONEST". You are probably safe with code generation, but any step left or right and you get "I am Claude"
- Zarel 3y ago
  My friend's been learning programming with Github Copilot and gets refusals there sometimes, for seemingly no reason; so here's an example for you: https://d.pr/i/XSiepe https://d.pr/i/XSiepe
a_wild_dandan 3y ago
Comically benign stuff that works fine with GPT-4? It's so trivial to run into Claude lying or responding with arrogant misjudgements. Here's another person's poor anecdotal experiences to pair with yours and mine. [1][2] But more importantly: it shouldn't matter. My tools should not behave this way. Tools should not arbitrarily refuse to work. If I write well-formed C, it compiles, not protests in distaste. If I write a note, the app doesn't disable typing because my opinion sucks. If I chop a carrot, my knife doesn't curl up and lecture me about my admittedly poor form. My tools either work for me, or I don't work with them. I'm not wasting my time or self respect dancing for a tool's subjective approval. Work or gfto. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQuLRdBYn8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQuLRdBYn8Q [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgwpqjiKkoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgwpqjiKkoY
- bm-rf 3y ago
  Cars nowadays have radars and cameras that (for the most part) prevent you from running over pedestrians. Is that also a tool refusing to work? I'd argue a line needs to be drawn somewhere, LLMs do a great job of providing recipes for dinner but maybe shouldn't teach me how to build a bomb.
  - throwaway123982 3y ago
    > LLMs do a great job of providing recipes for dinner but maybe shouldn't teach me how to build a bomb. Why not? If someone wants to make a bomb, they can already find out from other source materials. We already have regulations around acquiring dangerous materials. Knowing how to make a bomb is not the same as making one (which is not the same as using one to harm people.)
    - toss1 3y ago
      It's about access and command & control. I could have the same sentiment as you, since in high school, friends & I were in the habit of using our knowledge from chemistry class (and a bit more reading; waay pre-Internet) to make some rather impressive fireworks and rockets. But we never did anything destructive with them. There are many bits of technology that can destroy large numbers of people with a single action. Usually, those are either tightly controlled and/or require jumping a high bar of technical knowledge, industrial capability, and/or capital to produce. The intersection of people with that requisite knowledge+capability+capital and people sufficiently psycopathic to build & use such destructive things approaches zero. The same was true of hacking way back when. The result was interesting, sometimes fun, and generally non-destructive hacks. But now, hacking tools have been developed to the level of copy+paste click+shoot. Script kiddies became a thing. And we now must deal with ransomeware gangs of everything from nation-state actors down to rando teenage miscreants, but they all cause massive damage. Extending copy+paste click+shoot level knowledge to bombs and biological agents is just massively stupid. The last thing we need is having a low intelligence bar required to have people setting off bombs & bioweapons on their stupid whims. So yes, we absolutely should restrict these kinds of recipe-from-scratch responses. In any case, if you really want to know, I'm sure that, if you already have significant knowledge and smarts, you can craft prompts to get the LLM to reveal the parts you don't know. But this gets back to raising the bar, which is just fine.
staticman2 3y ago
Claude is significantly less censored on poe.com than on claude.ai. Claude.ai has internal system prompts of some sort encouraging this, I assume. It would not surprise me if Bedrock is the less censored version.

sa-code 3y ago

I hear a lot of complaints about refusals but rarely any examples of said refusals, likely because they are embarrassing. Is it fair to assume that I won't get refusals for code generation and RAG on documentation?

taf2 3y ago
since they don't have a share feature like some other open/er AI's it's difficult to compare. My favorite one to share as I recall was when Anthropic first released their chat UI. I asked it whether they had an API to which it told me know. After I shared the documentation for it's API to it it went into a forever denial of everything I asked it. I wish I still had the full dialog it was very funny.
scarmig 3y ago
> I hear a lot of complaints about refusals but rarely any examples of said refusals, likely because they are embarrassing. At least circa 8 months ago on ChatGPT (an aeon ago, I recognize), I could readily get it to make gendered jokes about men but would get a refusal when asking for gendered jokes about women. I think things have "improved" in that time, meaning a more equal distribution of verboten topics, but my preference would be a tool that does what I want it to, not one that tries to protect me from myself for society's or my own good. (There's a related problem in the biases introduced by the training process.) > Is it fair to assume that I won't get refusals for code generation and RAG on documentation? Give it a couple years. "Can you write me a Java function that, given an array length, a start of a range, and the end of a range, returns whether the range is valid or not?" "I'm sorry, but this code is inappropriate to share. Shall I purchase a license from Oracle for access to it for you?"
- sa-code 3y ago
  Oh for sure. We're in the golden age of LLMs before the enshittification commences and we don't appreciate that enough
  - scarmig 3y ago
    And, of course, we'll have ads incorporated (some subtle, some not) into every response. Native advertising!
e-max 3y ago
No, Claude really DO refuse to do most benign shit. For example - I am preparing for driving exams in German, a language I am not fluent in. So I asked Claude to help me with questions the examiner might ask on the exam (what should be tire pressure and so on). GPT-4 worked perfectly! Claude had an absolute meltdown because "I don't feel comfortable pretending to be a driving examiner because I am not really an examiner, I am Claude, created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless and HONEST". You are probably safe with code generation, but any step left or right and you get "I am Claude"
Zarel 3y ago
My friend's been learning programming with Github Copilot and gets refusals there sometimes, for seemingly no reason; so here's an example for you: https://d.pr/i/XSiepe https://d.pr/i/XSiepe

a_wild_dandan 3y ago

Comically benign stuff that works fine with GPT-4? It's so trivial to run into Claude lying or responding with arrogant misjudgements. Here's another person's poor anecdotal experiences to pair with yours and mine. [1][2] But more importantly: it shouldn't matter. My tools should not behave this way. Tools should not arbitrarily refuse to work. If I write well-formed C, it compiles, not protests in distaste. If I write a note, the app doesn't disable typing because my opinion sucks. If I chop a carrot, my knife doesn't curl up and lecture me about my admittedly poor form. My tools either work for me, or I don't work with them. I'm not wasting my time or self respect dancing for a tool's subjective approval. Work or gfto. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQuLRdBYn8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQuLRdBYn8Q [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgwpqjiKkoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgwpqjiKkoY

bm-rf 3y ago
Cars nowadays have radars and cameras that (for the most part) prevent you from running over pedestrians. Is that also a tool refusing to work? I'd argue a line needs to be drawn somewhere, LLMs do a great job of providing recipes for dinner but maybe shouldn't teach me how to build a bomb.
- throwaway123982 3y ago
  > LLMs do a great job of providing recipes for dinner but maybe shouldn't teach me how to build a bomb. Why not? If someone wants to make a bomb, they can already find out from other source materials. We already have regulations around acquiring dangerous materials. Knowing how to make a bomb is not the same as making one (which is not the same as using one to harm people.)
  - toss1 3y ago
    It's about access and command & control. I could have the same sentiment as you, since in high school, friends & I were in the habit of using our knowledge from chemistry class (and a bit more reading; waay pre-Internet) to make some rather impressive fireworks and rockets. But we never did anything destructive with them. There are many bits of technology that can destroy large numbers of people with a single action. Usually, those are either tightly controlled and/or require jumping a high bar of technical knowledge, industrial capability, and/or capital to produce. The intersection of people with that requisite knowledge+capability+capital and people sufficiently psycopathic to build & use such destructive things approaches zero. The same was true of hacking way back when. The result was interesting, sometimes fun, and generally non-destructive hacks. But now, hacking tools have been developed to the level of copy+paste click+shoot. Script kiddies became a thing. And we now must deal with ransomeware gangs of everything from nation-state actors down to rando teenage miscreants, but they all cause massive damage. Extending copy+paste click+shoot level knowledge to bombs and biological agents is just massively stupid. The last thing we need is having a low intelligence bar required to have people setting off bombs & bioweapons on their stupid whims. So yes, we absolutely should restrict these kinds of recipe-from-scratch responses. In any case, if you really want to know, I'm sure that, if you already have significant knowledge and smarts, you can craft prompts to get the LLM to reveal the parts you don't know. But this gets back to raising the bar, which is just fine.

staticman2 3y ago

Claude is significantly less censored on poe.com than on claude.ai. Claude.ai has internal system prompts of some sort encouraging this, I assume. It would not surprise me if Bedrock is the less censored version.