5 ms·

There is no need to implement large scale censorship and moderation in this case. Where is the security concern? That I can generate images of white people in v

There is no need to implement large scale censorship and moderation in this case. Where is the security concern? That I can generate images of white people in various situations for my five minutes of entertainment? The whole premise of your argument doesn't make sense. I'm talking to a computer, nobody gets hurt. It's like censoring what I write in my notes app vs. what I write on someone's Facebook wall. In one case, I expect no moderation, whereas in the other case, I get that there needs to be some checks.

Ecoste 3y ago
But what if little timmy asks it how to make a bomb? What if it's racist? Then what?
- withinboredom 3y ago
  None of this should be a mystery. Making a bomb is literally something you can figure out with very little research (my friends and I used to blow up cow pastures for fun!). Racism is a totally different and sadder issue. I don’t have a good answer for that one, but knowledge shouldn’t be withheld because someone thinks it is “dangerous”
  - lobocinza 3y ago
    > but knowledge shouldn’t be withheld because someone thinks it is “dangerous” Those that think that are the truly dangerous. They think they know better and want to remove agency from people.
- pizzafeelsright 3y ago
  It's fine. We have laws against blowing people up. Racism is fine as well. I won't date out of my race and if you think there should be a law that I must that's not really freedom. As for hiring or not based upon race there's already a law against that. The cure is often worse than navigating uneasy waters. Every time you pass a law you give a gun to a bureaucrat.
  - madmagister 3y ago
    Well stated. People are so upset about racism/groupism/etc. I married within my race but my sister didn't. Different strokes for different folks. Freedom is about that. And, every law is indeed a gun.
mhuffman 3y ago
When these companies say there are "security concerns" they mean for them, not you! And they mean the security of their profits. So anything that can cause them legal liability or cause them brand degradation is a "security concern".
- wruza 3y ago
  It's definitely this at this stage. But by not having any discourse we'll end up normalizing it even before establishing consensus on what's appropriate to expect from human/AI interaction and how much of a problem is the actual model, opposed to a user. Not being able to generate innocent content is ridiculous. Probably they're overshooting and learning how to draw the stricter lines right now, but if you don't argue, you'll allow to boil this frog into a Google "Search" again.
joquarky 3y ago
Our perception of the world has become so abstract that most people can't discern metaphors from the material world anymore The map is not the territory Sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers and the like might find a lot of answers by looking into the details of what is included into genAI alignment and trace back the history of why we need each particular alignment
AnarchismIsCool 3y ago
It's part of the marketing. By saying their models are powerful enough to be gasp Dangerous, they are trying to get people to believe they're insanely capable. In reality, every model so far has been either a toy, a way of injecting tons of bugs into your code (or circumventing GPL by writing bugs), or a way of justifying laying off the writing staff you already wanted to shit can. They have a ton of potential and we'll get there soon, but this isn't it.
g42gregory 3y ago
What if you are engaged in a wrongthink? How would you suggest this to be controlled instead?
- u32480932048 3y ago
  Straight to Guantanamo.
gopher_space 3y ago
> Where is the security concern? That I can generate images of white people in various situations for my five minutes of entertainment? I'd love an example of "guardrails" in action on a topic of relevance to actual adults. There's a connection I can't find between the ability to make racist memes and literally anything else I want to do with AI.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  I can use trivial tools to do harm. Be that a knife or any object heavier than a pound. The user can use a tool for good or for bad. It is the responsibility of the user, not of the AI.
  - gopher_space 3y ago
    A box knife with its tiny, retractable blade fits into your model. I could just open boxes with a naked razor blade, but the box knife is both safer and more useful.
    - lobocinza 3y ago
      Except that there are no guards but just places in the naked blade that were dulled. The dulled edges are indistinguishable from the sharp edges at first sight so the knife is less useful and less safer.
- lobocinza 3y ago
  I prefer to decide myself what is and what isn't of relevance to me. The "guardrails" in this case are racist (reverse racism is racism) and so cartoonish that they are hard to ignore but the real issue is that there are undisclosed "guardrails". What about the cases where it generates biased data and we don't notice it.
  - gopher_space 3y ago
    Where are you getting the idea that there's unbiased information available? It's absolutely generating biased "data" since it's been trained on human writing.
electrondood 3y ago
The concern is that companies have long known that it's bad for business if your product is a toxic cesspit or can be used to generate horrible headlines that reflect poorly on your brand. It's not "woke," and it's not censorship. It's literally the free market.
anomaly_ 3y ago
When someone unironically uses the term "problematic" you can reasonably assume the position they are going to argue from...
- madmagister 3y ago
  Ha ha ha... exactly...
vimbtw 3y ago
The main problem seems to be that LLM outputs seem to be tied to the company itself. If the tool is creating un-diverse images or sexist text people seem to intuitively associate that output with the company itself. This appears to be different than search results. People don’t generally get angry at Google because they can find sexist ideas through the search engine. Maybe to have more powerful AI tools we need to stop getting angry at the company that trains the AI because of the bad outputs we can get and instead get annoyed with companies that create crappy hobbled tools.

Ecoste 3y ago

But what if little timmy asks it how to make a bomb? What if it's racist? Then what?

withinboredom 3y ago
None of this should be a mystery. Making a bomb is literally something you can figure out with very little research (my friends and I used to blow up cow pastures for fun!). Racism is a totally different and sadder issue. I don’t have a good answer for that one, but knowledge shouldn’t be withheld because someone thinks it is “dangerous”
- lobocinza 3y ago
  > but knowledge shouldn’t be withheld because someone thinks it is “dangerous” Those that think that are the truly dangerous. They think they know better and want to remove agency from people.
pizzafeelsright 3y ago
It's fine. We have laws against blowing people up. Racism is fine as well. I won't date out of my race and if you think there should be a law that I must that's not really freedom. As for hiring or not based upon race there's already a law against that. The cure is often worse than navigating uneasy waters. Every time you pass a law you give a gun to a bureaucrat.
- madmagister 3y ago
  Well stated. People are so upset about racism/groupism/etc. I married within my race but my sister didn't. Different strokes for different folks. Freedom is about that. And, every law is indeed a gun.

mhuffman 3y ago

When these companies say there are "security concerns" they mean for them, not you! And they mean the security of their profits. So anything that can cause them legal liability or cause them brand degradation is a "security concern".

wruza 3y ago
It's definitely this at this stage. But by not having any discourse we'll end up normalizing it even before establishing consensus on what's appropriate to expect from human/AI interaction and how much of a problem is the actual model, opposed to a user. Not being able to generate innocent content is ridiculous. Probably they're overshooting and learning how to draw the stricter lines right now, but if you don't argue, you'll allow to boil this frog into a Google "Search" again.

joquarky 3y ago

Our perception of the world has become so abstract that most people can't discern metaphors from the material world anymore The map is not the territory Sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers and the like might find a lot of answers by looking into the details of what is included into genAI alignment and trace back the history of why we need each particular alignment

AnarchismIsCool 3y ago

It's part of the marketing. By saying their models are powerful enough to be gasp Dangerous, they are trying to get people to believe they're insanely capable. In reality, every model so far has been either a toy, a way of injecting tons of bugs into your code (or circumventing GPL by writing bugs), or a way of justifying laying off the writing staff you already wanted to shit can. They have a ton of potential and we'll get there soon, but this isn't it.

g42gregory 3y ago

What if you are engaged in a wrongthink? How would you suggest this to be controlled instead?

u32480932048 3y ago
Straight to Guantanamo.

gopher_space 3y ago

> Where is the security concern? That I can generate images of white people in various situations for my five minutes of entertainment? I'd love an example of "guardrails" in action on a topic of relevance to actual adults. There's a connection I can't find between the ability to make racist memes and literally anything else I want to do with AI.

raxxorraxor 3y ago
I can use trivial tools to do harm. Be that a knife or any object heavier than a pound. The user can use a tool for good or for bad. It is the responsibility of the user, not of the AI.
- gopher_space 3y ago
  A box knife with its tiny, retractable blade fits into your model. I could just open boxes with a naked razor blade, but the box knife is both safer and more useful.
  - lobocinza 3y ago
    Except that there are no guards but just places in the naked blade that were dulled. The dulled edges are indistinguishable from the sharp edges at first sight so the knife is less useful and less safer.
lobocinza 3y ago
I prefer to decide myself what is and what isn't of relevance to me. The "guardrails" in this case are racist (reverse racism is racism) and so cartoonish that they are hard to ignore but the real issue is that there are undisclosed "guardrails". What about the cases where it generates biased data and we don't notice it.
- gopher_space 3y ago
  Where are you getting the idea that there's unbiased information available? It's absolutely generating biased "data" since it's been trained on human writing.

electrondood 3y ago

The concern is that companies have long known that it's bad for business if your product is a toxic cesspit or can be used to generate horrible headlines that reflect poorly on your brand. It's not "woke," and it's not censorship. It's literally the free market.

anomaly_ 3y ago

When someone unironically uses the term "problematic" you can reasonably assume the position they are going to argue from...

madmagister 3y ago
Ha ha ha... exactly...

vimbtw 3y ago

The main problem seems to be that LLM outputs seem to be tied to the company itself. If the tool is creating un-diverse images or sexist text people seem to intuitively associate that output with the company itself. This appears to be different than search results. People don’t generally get angry at Google because they can find sexist ideas through the search engine. Maybe to have more powerful AI tools we need to stop getting angry at the company that trains the AI because of the bad outputs we can get and instead get annoyed with companies that create crappy hobbled tools.