4 ms·

Its very amusing to me to compare "content moderation" applied to social media versus LLMs. The last 15 years we've seen some of the most awful and bizarre thi

Its very amusing to me to compare "content moderation" applied to social media versus LLMs. The last 15 years we've seen some of the most awful and bizarre things happen on social media where motivating mantra seemed to be "move fast and break things." Now we have a company "trying" to be more responsible when they are releasing a new technology and they are having hilariously terrible results... (hilarious because unlike the social media case, I dont think these faux pauxs have important real world consequences).

lotu 3y ago
I think this is a reaction to the whole social media debacle. These companies have gotten burned and now they are shy about touching the stove. Also I feel like we don't have the same competitive environment of two decades ago. There are only really a few players in the AI game and they can afford to move more slowly because it's not like some small start up is going to beat them at AI because they moved quicker.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dmix 3y ago
  > These companies have gotten burned Have they really though? Usually companies overreact to a lot of social media outrage that would blow over in a couple days. But their very online PR/social media employees turn everything into an emergency. Imagine infosec people making every CVE a big deal, you’d end up with a needlessly limited system - that ironically doesn’t satisfy anyone, because the infosec people will always have a new urgent CVE tomorrow. This automatic fear based approach to doing anything, without actually balancing risks and tradeoffs, is its own ritualistic system of self-harm. Companies burning themselves on the stove.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    > Imagine infosec people making every CVE a big deal, you’d end up with a needlessly limited system - that ironically doesn’t satisfy anyone, because the infosec people will always have a new urgent CVE tomorrow. That already exists, it's called SIPRNet, and it satisfies several millions people in their day to day job.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  ? openai is literally a small startup that did what all the big guys were not doing, and only now after the fact they are essentially forced to put their half-baked long term works in progress out into the public because a little guy went ahead without them and moved quicker. I don't admire openai btw. It's just that that is what happened.
tapoxi 3y ago
Communications Decency Act. They're legally responsible for what the AI says, but not what their users say.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  I believe intent is a very important concept to recognize something as offensive. Since LLMs have no intent, it should not be able to produce anything that can offend you. Or, if you do indeed get offended, it is because of lacking understanding on your part. Of course a prompt can have an offensive intent, but I don't see how you can make the tool responsible. Doesn't work with knives or hammers, so the legislation might just be crap (Intent of this judgement is meant to be offensive in this case).
gopher_space 3y ago
> Now we have a company "trying" to be more responsible when they are releasing a new technology and they are having hilariously terrible results. We need to be open to the idea that the computer might mock us. What's a Venn diagram of "good artists" and "people who'd only draw pictures of Nazis sarcastically" look like?
aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> Now we have a company "trying" to be more responsible when they are releasing a new technology and they are having hilariously terrible results... I think the huge point that in my opinion all of these AI companies forget is that what is considered "responsible" depends a lot on the culture, country, or often even sub-culture that the user is in. It might sound a little bit postmodern, but I think that there are only few somewhat universally accepted opinions on things thhat are "responsible" vs "not responsible". Just watch basically any debate on a topic where both sides have strong opinions on it, and analyze which cultural or moral traits each side has that lead it to its opinion. Does my answer offer a "solution" for this problem? I don't think so. But I do think that including this thought into the design of making the AI "responsible" might reduce "outcries" (or shitstorms ;-) ) that come up because the "morality" that the AI uses to act "responsibly" is very different from the moral standards of some group of users.
- izacus 3y ago
  I doubt any of these companies really care about culture beyond the walls of their execs western american offices and related media influencers.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jevoten 3y ago
> hilarious because unlike the social media case, I dont think these faux pauxs have important real world consequences Which is exactly why people mock this being referred to as "safety". Keep in mind the group mocking this PR bubble-wrapping of AI is largely opposed to the media professionals writing panicked editorials about how they were able to trick an AI into saying racism is good.
jhanschoo 3y ago
Initially I thought that this had to do with Gemini tailoring their response to someone likely to be a beginner. But no, it has confused between type safety and the safety of minors https://gemini.google.com/share/continue/238032386438 https://gemini.google.com/share/continue/238032386438

lotu 3y ago

I think this is a reaction to the whole social media debacle. These companies have gotten burned and now they are shy about touching the stove. Also I feel like we don't have the same competitive environment of two decades ago. There are only really a few players in the AI game and they can afford to move more slowly because it's not like some small start up is going to beat them at AI because they moved quicker.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dmix 3y ago
> These companies have gotten burned Have they really though? Usually companies overreact to a lot of social media outrage that would blow over in a couple days. But their very online PR/social media employees turn everything into an emergency. Imagine infosec people making every CVE a big deal, you’d end up with a needlessly limited system - that ironically doesn’t satisfy anyone, because the infosec people will always have a new urgent CVE tomorrow. This automatic fear based approach to doing anything, without actually balancing risks and tradeoffs, is its own ritualistic system of self-harm. Companies burning themselves on the stove.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > Imagine infosec people making every CVE a big deal, you’d end up with a needlessly limited system - that ironically doesn’t satisfy anyone, because the infosec people will always have a new urgent CVE tomorrow. That already exists, it's called SIPRNet, and it satisfies several millions people in their day to day job.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
? openai is literally a small startup that did what all the big guys were not doing, and only now after the fact they are essentially forced to put their half-baked long term works in progress out into the public because a little guy went ahead without them and moved quicker. I don't admire openai btw. It's just that that is what happened.

tapoxi 3y ago

Communications Decency Act. They're legally responsible for what the AI says, but not what their users say.

raxxorraxor 3y ago
I believe intent is a very important concept to recognize something as offensive. Since LLMs have no intent, it should not be able to produce anything that can offend you. Or, if you do indeed get offended, it is because of lacking understanding on your part. Of course a prompt can have an offensive intent, but I don't see how you can make the tool responsible. Doesn't work with knives or hammers, so the legislation might just be crap (Intent of this judgement is meant to be offensive in this case).

gopher_space 3y ago

> Now we have a company "trying" to be more responsible when they are releasing a new technology and they are having hilariously terrible results. We need to be open to the idea that the computer might mock us. What's a Venn diagram of "good artists" and "people who'd only draw pictures of Nazis sarcastically" look like?

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

> Now we have a company "trying" to be more responsible when they are releasing a new technology and they are having hilariously terrible results... I think the huge point that in my opinion all of these AI companies forget is that what is considered "responsible" depends a lot on the culture, country, or often even sub-culture that the user is in. It might sound a little bit postmodern, but I think that there are only few somewhat universally accepted opinions on things thhat are "responsible" vs "not responsible". Just watch basically any debate on a topic where both sides have strong opinions on it, and analyze which cultural or moral traits each side has that lead it to its opinion. Does my answer offer a "solution" for this problem? I don't think so. But I do think that including this thought into the design of making the AI "responsible" might reduce "outcries" (or shitstorms ;-) ) that come up because the "morality" that the AI uses to act "responsibly" is very different from the moral standards of some group of users.

izacus 3y ago
I doubt any of these companies really care about culture beyond the walls of their execs western american offices and related media influencers.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jevoten 3y ago

> hilarious because unlike the social media case, I dont think these faux pauxs have important real world consequences Which is exactly why people mock this being referred to as "safety". Keep in mind the group mocking this PR bubble-wrapping of AI is largely opposed to the media professionals writing panicked editorials about how they were able to trick an AI into saying racism is good.

jhanschoo 3y ago

Initially I thought that this had to do with Gemini tailoring their response to someone likely to be a beginner. But no, it has confused between type safety and the safety of minors https://gemini.google.com/share/continue/238032386438 https://gemini.google.com/share/continue/238032386438