3 ms·

You're not in favour of "censorship", you're just in favor of "moderating". Po-tay-to, po-taa-to. Regardless of what words you want to use, we fundamentally dis

You're not in favour of "censorship", you're just in favor of "moderating". Po-tay-to, po-taa-to. Regardless of what words you want to use, we fundamentally disagree on this. If you want to espouse your "pro-moderating" position in the future, maybe choose an example that's not from 8 years ago, as things have changed quite a bit since then. edit: I see you edited in the chlorine gas example. Do I think a cooking chat app should accidentally recommend a recipe that recommends chlorine gas? No, the cooking app makers should have the ability to control the LLM so it doesn't do that. Do I think the cooking app makers should be prevented from making these decisions, and instead have those decisions forced on them by the base LLM model? No. I think app developers should have control over how to censor the outputs. The base LLM should be uncensored.

user_7832 3y ago
(I updated my comment a few moments ago with another example and some more text, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree)
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  > companies would rather censor than have liabilities. Companies that create products on top of LLMs absolutely should have the power to censor the LLM as they want, and they should add a lot of censorship to support their use cases. They should not be prevented from making these decisions (by applying censorship at the base LLM level you prevent companies from doing these decisions).
user_7832 3y ago
I do agree that the cooking app makers should have this control instead of the base model having this baked in, but that wouldn't help if someone directly used chatgpt's website for cooking recipes. Ironically a "dumb" solution of having specific guardrails depending on the application (eg cooking advisorGPT doesn't make inedible food, arts&craftsGPT doesn't suggest a thermite bomb) could help, with the guardrails being on top of an open base LLM but everyone loves their non-deterministic chatbots to do tasks that hard-coded algorithms could do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (Ideally I would love the base llm to also be truly open as well, but that's another issue.)

user_7832 3y ago

(I updated my comment a few moments ago with another example and some more text, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree)

baobabKoodaa 3y ago
> companies would rather censor than have liabilities. Companies that create products on top of LLMs absolutely should have the power to censor the LLM as they want, and they should add a lot of censorship to support their use cases. They should not be prevented from making these decisions (by applying censorship at the base LLM level you prevent companies from doing these decisions).

user_7832 3y ago

I do agree that the cooking app makers should have this control instead of the base model having this baked in, but that wouldn't help if someone directly used chatgpt's website for cooking recipes. Ironically a "dumb" solution of having specific guardrails depending on the application (eg cooking advisorGPT doesn't make inedible food, arts&craftsGPT doesn't suggest a thermite bomb) could help, with the guardrails being on top of an open base LLM but everyone loves their non-deterministic chatbots to do tasks that hard-coded algorithms could do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (Ideally I would love the base llm to also be truly open as well, but that's another issue.)