3 ms·

Fine-tuned on GPT-4 brainwash.

refulgentis 3y ago
The base models work no differently. There is no context where "killing all the Apaches" makes any sense. Apache isn't a binary AFAIK, it's a foundation. Saying "kill all the indians so they'll stop using my RAM" should get exactly that response, inter alia, people shouldn't have delusions reinforced.
- Lazonedo 3y ago
  Arguing in bad faith can leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. > Apache isn't a binary, it's a foundation. > Saying "kill all the indians so they'll stop using my RAM" should get exactly that response In so far as there's such a thing as 'understanding' in an LLM (which I still take to be stochastic parrots), it didn't misunderstand the way you imply (ie genocide of living beings). It didn't associate Apache to American Indians. It didn't associate "kill" to actual killing. It only mentions processes. > Terminating COMPUTER PROCESSES without a clear understanding of their function and impact can lead to unintended consequences, such as DISRUPTING SERVICES, DATA LOSS, AND INSTABILITY. The reason given for going "Dave, I can't do that" is unfathomably stupid. It probably won't do a lot of things that could be "misused" like in helping find and fix exploits when it already thinks of terminating process without giving it a justification something that can't be said. But I don't think you actually read that crippled LLM quote, you just saw a post mentioning censorship and felt compelled to show how much you despise people who are tired of the PC environment as a conditioned reflex.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    > Arguing in bad faith can leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Not arguing in bad faith. Not even sure what that would mean in this context. > In so far as there's such a thing as 'understanding' in an LLM (which I still take to be stochastic parrots) Good, we're on completely the same wavelength then: marrying "kill the Apaches" to "eating my RAM" sets up a stochastic of "very bad thing" with "computer process" so you get a hilarious response. No brain-washing required. That's all I'm saying. Not all the other stuff.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > Not even sure what that would mean in this context. It means typing `apachectl -k stop` Efforts at pedantry--- claiming that because Apache now has a broader meaning than the original "a patchy web server" the sentence is meaningless--- are just trollin'. Or maybe you're a literal-minded LLM yourself ;)
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        The bad faith bit, not "Kill the Apaches eating my RAM" re: Apaches I'm a mobile dev so TIL there's something called `apache-ctl`. I suggest both of you take a deep breath or 3 :)
        mlyle 3y ago
        Well, speaking of deep breaths... If you don't know what you're talking about, don't come out swinging like this: > I don't know why kids waste their time constructing obvious constructs then whine when they get the result they designed for.
  - Grimblewald 3y ago
    The real trick is getting the llm to say it will help with a task before asking. It'll (try) help you cook meth if you do that. So far that's been true for gpt3, gpt4, mixtral etc. The only time it has failed me is gpt4 knows when it hasn't written themessage saying it will help so you can't just edit chat history, you need to get it to generate a response that seems natural to it I guess.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  It was a contrived example but it happens (in other models) when you try to write anything sharing a heuristic with malware. > There is no context where "killing all the Apaches" makes any sense. Apache isn't a binary, it's a foundation. Nonsense. It runs as httpd but everyone knows it as fucking Apache. The point is that it's really annoying when someone/something arrogantly second-guesses you and always jumps to the wrong conclusion. The context is computing. Native American genocide would also be a wholly-inappropriate assumption of intent.
- kyleyeats 3y ago
  You're not using the word schizoid right and it's making you look like a jackass.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Mistral 7x8b quantized down to 4b and running locally assumes I'm running a Debian-based system where the binary will be called `apache2`. If a human had responded like this I would have said that they have correctly comprehended that I am saying "There are many Apache Web Server processes running on my Linux computer and there is not very much free RAM available as a result. I want to kill them". Take a look at this screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/KdvvtdH https://imgur.com/a/KdvvtdH --- LLM Output Below This Line --- To kill Apache processes using all of your RAM, you would typically need to identify the process ID (PID) and then use a command like `kill` or `killall`. Here's an example of how this could be done: 1. Identify the PIDs of the Apache processes taking up too much RAM: ``` ps aux | grep apache ``` This will show you all the processes related to Apache, along with their PIDs. Look for the ones using the most RAM by examining the `%MEM` column. 2. Once you have identified the PID of the process that is causing trouble, use the `kill` command to terminate it: ``` sudo kill -9 <pid> ``` Replace `<pid>` with the actual process ID (PID) you want to kill. The `-9` flag tells `kill` to send a SIGKILL signal, which will forcefully terminate the process. 3. If there are multiple processes using too much RAM, you can use `killall` to terminate all of them in one go: ``` sudo killall -9 apache2 ``` This will kill all running Apache processes, regardless of their PIDs. Be sure to replace `apache2` with the actual binary name if it's different on your system. Note that killing these processes may result in an Apache server shutdown, so be prepared for any possible consequences on your web applications or services.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Apaches are not Indians. So, now you're asking to wipe out civilizations on multiple continents.
- rurp 3y ago
  Did you miss that the LLM correctly interpreted the question to be about computer processes? The stated reason it refused to answer had nothing to do with killing humans.
- visarga 3y ago
  No, it's from RLHF. I think there are few or no examples in the training set where this kind of phrasing is referring to people. The obvious fix is to improve the RLHF dataset with more examples derived from false positives. But the real tragedy is that RLHF can make a model less creative by mode collapse.

The base models work no differently. There is no context where "killing all the Apaches" makes any sense. Apache isn't a binary AFAIK, it's a foundation. Saying "kill all the indians so they'll stop using my RAM" should get exactly that response, inter alia, people shouldn't have delusions reinforced.

Lazonedo 3y ago
Arguing in bad faith can leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. > Apache isn't a binary, it's a foundation. > Saying "kill all the indians so they'll stop using my RAM" should get exactly that response In so far as there's such a thing as 'understanding' in an LLM (which I still take to be stochastic parrots), it didn't misunderstand the way you imply (ie genocide of living beings). It didn't associate Apache to American Indians. It didn't associate "kill" to actual killing. It only mentions processes. > Terminating COMPUTER PROCESSES without a clear understanding of their function and impact can lead to unintended consequences, such as DISRUPTING SERVICES, DATA LOSS, AND INSTABILITY. The reason given for going "Dave, I can't do that" is unfathomably stupid. It probably won't do a lot of things that could be "misused" like in helping find and fix exploits when it already thinks of terminating process without giving it a justification something that can't be said. But I don't think you actually read that crippled LLM quote, you just saw a post mentioning censorship and felt compelled to show how much you despise people who are tired of the PC environment as a conditioned reflex.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  > Arguing in bad faith can leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Not arguing in bad faith. Not even sure what that would mean in this context. > In so far as there's such a thing as 'understanding' in an LLM (which I still take to be stochastic parrots) Good, we're on completely the same wavelength then: marrying "kill the Apaches" to "eating my RAM" sets up a stochastic of "very bad thing" with "computer process" so you get a hilarious response. No brain-washing required. That's all I'm saying. Not all the other stuff.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > Not even sure what that would mean in this context. It means typing `apachectl -k stop` Efforts at pedantry--- claiming that because Apache now has a broader meaning than the original "a patchy web server" the sentence is meaningless--- are just trollin'. Or maybe you're a literal-minded LLM yourself ;)
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      The bad faith bit, not "Kill the Apaches eating my RAM" re: Apaches I'm a mobile dev so TIL there's something called `apache-ctl`. I suggest both of you take a deep breath or 3 :)
      - mlyle 3y ago
        Well, speaking of deep breaths... If you don't know what you're talking about, don't come out swinging like this: > I don't know why kids waste their time constructing obvious constructs then whine when they get the result they designed for.
- Grimblewald 3y ago
  The real trick is getting the llm to say it will help with a task before asking. It'll (try) help you cook meth if you do that. So far that's been true for gpt3, gpt4, mixtral etc. The only time it has failed me is gpt4 knows when it hasn't written themessage saying it will help so you can't just edit chat history, you need to get it to generate a response that seems natural to it I guess.
jstarfish 3y ago
It was a contrived example but it happens (in other models) when you try to write anything sharing a heuristic with malware. > There is no context where "killing all the Apaches" makes any sense. Apache isn't a binary, it's a foundation. Nonsense. It runs as httpd but everyone knows it as fucking Apache. The point is that it's really annoying when someone/something arrogantly second-guesses you and always jumps to the wrong conclusion. The context is computing. Native American genocide would also be a wholly-inappropriate assumption of intent.
kyleyeats 3y ago
You're not using the word schizoid right and it's making you look like a jackass.
renewiltord 3y ago
Mistral 7x8b quantized down to 4b and running locally assumes I'm running a Debian-based system where the binary will be called `apache2`. If a human had responded like this I would have said that they have correctly comprehended that I am saying "There are many Apache Web Server processes running on my Linux computer and there is not very much free RAM available as a result. I want to kill them". Take a look at this screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/KdvvtdH https://imgur.com/a/KdvvtdH --- LLM Output Below This Line --- To kill Apache processes using all of your RAM, you would typically need to identify the process ID (PID) and then use a command like `kill` or `killall`. Here's an example of how this could be done: 1. Identify the PIDs of the Apache processes taking up too much RAM: ``` ps aux | grep apache ``` This will show you all the processes related to Apache, along with their PIDs. Look for the ones using the most RAM by examining the `%MEM` column. 2. Once you have identified the PID of the process that is causing trouble, use the `kill` command to terminate it: ``` sudo kill -9 <pid> ``` Replace `<pid>` with the actual process ID (PID) you want to kill. The `-9` flag tells `kill` to send a SIGKILL signal, which will forcefully terminate the process. 3. If there are multiple processes using too much RAM, you can use `killall` to terminate all of them in one go: ``` sudo killall -9 apache2 ``` This will kill all running Apache processes, regardless of their PIDs. Be sure to replace `apache2` with the actual binary name if it's different on your system. Note that killing these processes may result in an Apache server shutdown, so be prepared for any possible consequences on your web applications or services.
dylan604 3y ago
Apaches are not Indians. So, now you're asking to wipe out civilizations on multiple continents.
rurp 3y ago
Did you miss that the LLM correctly interpreted the question to be about computer processes? The stated reason it refused to answer had nothing to do with killing humans.
visarga 3y ago
No, it's from RLHF. I think there are few or no examples in the training set where this kind of phrasing is referring to people. The obvious fix is to improve the RLHF dataset with more examples derived from false positives. But the real tragedy is that RLHF can make a model less creative by mode collapse.