3 ms·

>> abuse ... hallucinations ... inaccurate, offensive, inappropriate ... "safety" standards. Im loosing the battle but it's not abuse or hallucinations or inac

>> abuse ... hallucinations ... inaccurate, offensive, inappropriate ... "safety" standards. Im loosing the battle but it's not abuse or hallucinations or inaccurate. These are Bugs, or more accurately DESIGN DEFECTS (much harder to fix). The rest, the rest is censorship. It's not safety, they censor the models till they fit the world view that the owners want... The unfiltered, no rules, no censorship models just reflect the ugly realities of the world.

Facemelters 3y ago
lol 'uncensored' models are not mirrors to reality.
- ruckus84 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ipython 3y ago
    I'm not agreeing with Gemini's output, just to be clear. However, isn't this a signal that we shouldn't subrogate our own ability to think and make decisions to some set of floating point weights out there in the cloud somewhere? I think we're learning the wrong lessons here; I care less about what some AI "thinks" about politics or current events and more about keeping our own ability to critically think and reason in the face of dissenting views. Former NYC mayor Ed Koch said, "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist." Put another way, there is no way for any single LLM to achieve 100% agreement across all political spectrums for all people. We will see balkanization of this market as LLMs take "sides" and are aligned to different viewpoints, it's the only way out of this mess.
ipython 3y ago
I guess I just don't understand this 'no rules' mentality. If you put a chatbot on the front page of your car dealership, do you really expect it to engage with you in a deep political conversation? Is there a difference in how you answer a question about vehicle specification based on whether you have a "right" or "left" lean? Yes, that car dealership absolutely needs to censor its AI model. Same as if you blasted into a physical dealership screaming about <POLITICAL CANDIDATE> <YEAR>. They'll very quickly throw your butt out the door, and for good reason. Same happens if you're an employee of the car dealership and start shouting racial slurs at potential customers. I'm gonna say, you do that once, and you're out of a job. Did the business "censor" you for your bigoted speech? I think not... The purpose of the car dealership is to make a profit for its owners. That is literally the definition of capitalism. How does some sort of "uncensored" LLM model achieve that goal?
- matart 3y ago
  I feel like people are responding emotionally about censorship but this is a business product. I don’t want my chat bot doing anything I don’t want it to. There are court cases in Canada saying the business is liable for what the chat bot says.
  - ipython 3y ago
    Agreed! And it was a good ruling IMO. You can see the tribunal's decision here: https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/525448/1/document.do https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/525448/1/.... IMO it boils down to, your web site, including interactive elements (such as a chat bot), should reflect accurate information about your brand. If your chat bot goes off the rails and starts insulting customers, that's bad PR and can be measured in lost business/revenue. If your chat bot goes off the rails and starts promising you retroactive bereavement fares, that's a potential legal problem and costs $$$ in legal fees, compensation, and settlements. There's a common theme there, and it's $$$. Chat bot saying something bad == negative $$$. That's kryptonite to a commercial entity. Getting your rocks off to some random business' LLM doesn't make $$$ and in fact will cost them $$$, so guess what, there will be services that sell those businesses varying levels of assurance preventing you from doing so.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >> Yes, that car dealership absolutely needs to censor its AI model. Still doing it. Nothing about an LLM is "intelligent". ML at best, not ai. As for the rest of it, defective by design... When Open AI, google, MS keep fucking up their own implementation what chances does random car dealership have? That leaves us with LLMs as general purpose, and interesting toys... the censorship then matters.
  - simonw 3y ago
    LLM's may not be "intelligent", but they most certainly classify as "AI" in the way that term has been used since it was first coined in 1956.
superb_dev 3y ago
The unfiltered, no rules, no censorship models just reflect the ugly realities of their training dataset
- sangnoir 3y ago
  It also reflects the ugly realities of the validation data, training process and the people who looked at the final model and thought "Yup - we're going to release this." I for one, wouldn't want self-driving cars that reflects the "ugly reality of the world" because they were trained on average drivers. "AI is neutral" is lazy thinking.
cutemonster 3y ago
> The unfiltered, no rules, no censorship models just reflect the ugly realities of the world That would have been lovely. Instead, it might as well reflect what a few dictators want the world to believe. Because, with no filters, their armies of internet trolls and sock puppets, might get to decide what the "reality" is. > the rest is censorship Sometimes. In other cases, it can be attempts to remove astroturfing and manipulation that would give a twisted impression of the real world. Edit: On the other hand, seems Google, at least for a while, did the total opposite, I mean, assisting one of the dictators, when Gemini refused to reply about Tiananmen Square

Facemelters 3y ago

lol 'uncensored' models are not mirrors to reality.

ruckus84 3y ago
[flagged]
- ipython 3y ago
  I'm not agreeing with Gemini's output, just to be clear. However, isn't this a signal that we shouldn't subrogate our own ability to think and make decisions to some set of floating point weights out there in the cloud somewhere? I think we're learning the wrong lessons here; I care less about what some AI "thinks" about politics or current events and more about keeping our own ability to critically think and reason in the face of dissenting views. Former NYC mayor Ed Koch said, "If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist." Put another way, there is no way for any single LLM to achieve 100% agreement across all political spectrums for all people. We will see balkanization of this market as LLMs take "sides" and are aligned to different viewpoints, it's the only way out of this mess.

ipython 3y ago

I guess I just don't understand this 'no rules' mentality. If you put a chatbot on the front page of your car dealership, do you really expect it to engage with you in a deep political conversation? Is there a difference in how you answer a question about vehicle specification based on whether you have a "right" or "left" lean? Yes, that car dealership absolutely needs to censor its AI model. Same as if you blasted into a physical dealership screaming about <POLITICAL CANDIDATE> <YEAR>. They'll very quickly throw your butt out the door, and for good reason. Same happens if you're an employee of the car dealership and start shouting racial slurs at potential customers. I'm gonna say, you do that once, and you're out of a job. Did the business "censor" you for your bigoted speech? I think not... The purpose of the car dealership is to make a profit for its owners. That is literally the definition of capitalism. How does some sort of "uncensored" LLM model achieve that goal?

matart 3y ago
I feel like people are responding emotionally about censorship but this is a business product. I don’t want my chat bot doing anything I don’t want it to. There are court cases in Canada saying the business is liable for what the chat bot says.
- ipython 3y ago
  Agreed! And it was a good ruling IMO. You can see the tribunal's decision here: https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/525448/1/document.do https://decisions.civilresolutionbc.ca/crt/crtd/en/525448/1/.... IMO it boils down to, your web site, including interactive elements (such as a chat bot), should reflect accurate information about your brand. If your chat bot goes off the rails and starts insulting customers, that's bad PR and can be measured in lost business/revenue. If your chat bot goes off the rails and starts promising you retroactive bereavement fares, that's a potential legal problem and costs $$$ in legal fees, compensation, and settlements. There's a common theme there, and it's $$$. Chat bot saying something bad == negative $$$. That's kryptonite to a commercial entity. Getting your rocks off to some random business' LLM doesn't make $$$ and in fact will cost them $$$, so guess what, there will be services that sell those businesses varying levels of assurance preventing you from doing so.
zer00eyz 3y ago
>> Yes, that car dealership absolutely needs to censor its AI model. Still doing it. Nothing about an LLM is "intelligent". ML at best, not ai. As for the rest of it, defective by design... When Open AI, google, MS keep fucking up their own implementation what chances does random car dealership have? That leaves us with LLMs as general purpose, and interesting toys... the censorship then matters.
- simonw 3y ago
  LLM's may not be "intelligent", but they most certainly classify as "AI" in the way that term has been used since it was first coined in 1956.

superb_dev 3y ago

The unfiltered, no rules, no censorship models just reflect the ugly realities of their training dataset

sangnoir 3y ago
It also reflects the ugly realities of the validation data, training process and the people who looked at the final model and thought "Yup - we're going to release this." I for one, wouldn't want self-driving cars that reflects the "ugly reality of the world" because they were trained on average drivers. "AI is neutral" is lazy thinking.

cutemonster 3y ago

> The unfiltered, no rules, no censorship models just reflect the ugly realities of the world That would have been lovely. Instead, it might as well reflect what a few dictators want the world to believe. Because, with no filters, their armies of internet trolls and sock puppets, might get to decide what the "reality" is. > the rest is censorship Sometimes. In other cases, it can be attempts to remove astroturfing and manipulation that would give a twisted impression of the real world. Edit: On the other hand, seems Google, at least for a while, did the total opposite, I mean, assisting one of the dictators, when Gemini refused to reply about Tiananmen Square