4 ms·

>Is a safe LLM not an ethical LLM? What is an ethical LLM ? Humans are in general not aligned, not to each other, not to the survival of their species, not to

>Is a safe LLM not an ethical LLM? What is an ethical LLM ? Humans are in general not aligned, not to each other, not to the survival of their species, not to all the other life on earth, and often not even to themselves individually. There are no universal set of "ethics" so this is about aligning to open ai's own rules, or in other words, control. If i say to my GPT bot, "go trade stocks for me. don't do anything illegal", can i guarantee that ? No you can't regardless of how "ethical" you make your model to be. The guarantee that you will have nothing to worry about is the crux of alignment.

righthand 3y ago
> There are no universal set of "ethics" so this is about aligning to open ai's own rules, or in other words, control. Are ethics not a set of rules relative to the governing body applying those rules? Right as there are no universal ideas of a safe LLM, controlled LLM, or ethical LLM. Safe would imply some level of control about the ethical output of the model. Yet the words are still poorly defined as they are interchangeable: If i say to my GPT bot, "go trade stocks for me. don't do anything illegal", can i guarantee that ? No you can't regardless of how “safe”/“controlled”/“ethical” you make your model to be. You’re spinning the words to create a distinct difference but it doesn’t hold up because they’re each a relative mechanism for each other as they are all poorly defined in the field but chosen to mask the poor definition. You’re just playing by the PR game rules.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  I genuinely don't understand what you're looking for here. Obviously the process definition is poorly defined. If it weren't, we would be able to algin ourselves. We're talking about what the hoped outcome is. Nobody knows what it means to control an intelligence. That's what the research is about.

righthand 3y ago

> There are no universal set of "ethics" so this is about aligning to open ai's own rules, or in other words, control. Are ethics not a set of rules relative to the governing body applying those rules? Right as there are no universal ideas of a safe LLM, controlled LLM, or ethical LLM. Safe would imply some level of control about the ethical output of the model. Yet the words are still poorly defined as they are interchangeable: If i say to my GPT bot, "go trade stocks for me. don't do anything illegal", can i guarantee that ? No you can't regardless of how “safe”/“controlled”/“ethical” you make your model to be. You’re spinning the words to create a distinct difference but it doesn’t hold up because they’re each a relative mechanism for each other as they are all poorly defined in the field but chosen to mask the poor definition. You’re just playing by the PR game rules.

famouswaffles 3y ago
I genuinely don't understand what you're looking for here. Obviously the process definition is poorly defined. If it weren't, we would be able to algin ourselves. We're talking about what the hoped outcome is. Nobody knows what it means to control an intelligence. That's what the research is about.