5 ms·

> but it is precisely the controls upon it which are trying to be injected by the large model operators which are generating mistrust and a poor understanding o

> but it is precisely the controls upon it which are trying to be injected by the large model operators which are generating mistrust and a poor understanding of what these models are useful for. Citation needed. Counterpoints: - LLMs were mistrusted well before anything recent. - More controls make LLMs more trustworthy for many people, not less. The Snafu at Goog suggests a need for improved controls, not 0 controls. - The American culture wars are not global. (They have their own culture wars).

lmm 3y ago
> More controls make LLMs more trustworthy for many people, not less. The Snafu at Goog suggests a need for improved controls, not 0 controls. To whom? And, as hard as this is to test, how sincerely? > The American culture wars are not global. (They have their own culture wars). Do people from places with different culture wars trust these American-culture-war-blinkered LLMs more or less than Americans do?
- intended 3y ago
  - To me, the teams I work with and everyone handling content moderation. / Rant / Oh God please let these things be bottle necked. The job was already absurd, LLMs and GenAI are going to be just frikking amazing to deal with. Spam and manipulative marketing has already evolved - and thats with bounded LLMs. There are comments that look innocuous, well written, but the entire purpose is to low key get someone to do a google search for a firm. And thats on a reddit sub. Completely ignoring the other million types of content moderation that have to adapt. Holy hell people. Attack and denial opportunities on the net are VERY different from the physical world. You want to keep a market place of ideas running? Well guess what - If I clog the arteries faster than you can get ideas in place, then people stop getting those ideas. And you CANT solve it by adding MORE content. You have only X amount of attention. (This was a growing issue radio->tv->cable->Internet scales) Unless someone is sticking a chip into our heads to increase processing capacity magically, more content isnt going to help. And in case someone comes up with some brilliant edge case - Does it generalize to a billion+ people ? Can it be operationalized? Does it require a sweet little grandma in the Philippines to learn how to run a federated server? Does it assume people will stop behaving like people? Oh also - does it cost money and engineering resources? Well guess what, T&S is a cost center. Heck - T&S reduces churn, and that its protecting revenue is a novel argument today. T&S has existed for a decade plus. / Rant. Hmm, seems like I need a break. I suppose It’s been one of those weeks. I will most likely delete this out of shame eventually. - People in other places want more controls. The Indian government and a large portion of the populace will want stricter controls on what can be generated from an LLM. This may not necessarily be good for free thought and culture, however the reality is that many nations haven’t travelled the same distance or path as America has.
  - AdrianEGraphene 3y ago
    I hope you don't delete it! I enjoyed reading it. It pleased my confirmation bias, anyways. Your comment might help someone notice patterns that they've been glancing over.... I liked it up until the T&S part. My eyes glazed over the rest since I didn't know what T&S means. But that's just me.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
    As of right now, the only solution I see is forums walled off in some way, complex captchas, intense proof of work, subscription fees etc. Only alternative might be obscurity, which makes the forum less useful. Maybe we could do like a web3 type thing but instead of pointless cryptos, you have a cryptographic proof that certifies you did the captcha or whatever and lots of sites accept them. I don’t think its unsolvable, just that it will make the internet somewhat worse.
    - BlueTemplar 3y ago
      Yeah, one thing I am afraid of is that forums will decide to join the Discord chatrooms on the deep web : stop being readable without an account, which is pretty catastrophic for discovery by search engines and backup crawlers like the Internet Archive. Anyone with forum moderating experience care to chime in ? (Reddit, while still on the open web for now, isn't a forum, and worse, is a platform.)
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >And in case someone comes up with some brilliant edge case - Does it generalize to a billion+ people ? The answer is curation, and no, it doesn't need to scale to a billion people. maybe not even a million. The sad fact of life is that most people don't care enough to discrminate against low quality content, so they are already a lost cause. Focus on those who do care enough and build an audience around them. You as a likely not billion dollar company can't afford to worry about that kind of scale, and lowering the scale helps you get a solution out for the short term. You can worry about scaling if/when you tap into an audience.
    - 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
FeepingCreature 3y ago
Counter-counterpoint: absolutely nobody who has unguardrailed Stable Diffusion installed at home for private use has ever asked for more guardrails. I'm just saying. :) Guardrails nowadays don't really focus on dangers (it's hard to see how an image generator could produce dangers!) so much as enforcing public societal norms.
- bergen 3y ago
  Just because something is not dangerous to the user doesn’t mean it can’t be dangerous for others when someone is wielding it maliciously
  - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
    What kind of damage can you do with a current day llm? I’m guessing targeted scams or something? They aren’t even good hackers yet.
    - boredtofears 3y ago
      Fake revenge porn, nearly undetectable bot creation on social media with realistic profiles (I've already seen this on HN), generated artwork passed off as originals, chatbots that replace real-time human customer service but have none of the agency... I can keep going. All of these are things that have already happened. These all were previously possible of course but now they are trivially scalable.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Most of those examples make sense, but what's this doing on your list? > chatbots that replace real-time human customer service but have none of the agency That seems good for society, even though it's bad for people employed in that specific job.
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        the issue is "none of the agency". Humans generally have enough leeway to fold to a persistant customer because it's financially unviable to have them on the phone for hours on end. a chatbot can waste all the time in the world, with all the customers, and may not even have the ability to process a refund or whatnot.

lmm 3y ago

> More controls make LLMs more trustworthy for many people, not less. The Snafu at Goog suggests a need for improved controls, not 0 controls. To whom? And, as hard as this is to test, how sincerely? > The American culture wars are not global. (They have their own culture wars). Do people from places with different culture wars trust these American-culture-war-blinkered LLMs more or less than Americans do?

intended 3y ago
- To me, the teams I work with and everyone handling content moderation. / Rant / Oh God please let these things be bottle necked. The job was already absurd, LLMs and GenAI are going to be just frikking amazing to deal with. Spam and manipulative marketing has already evolved - and thats with bounded LLMs. There are comments that look innocuous, well written, but the entire purpose is to low key get someone to do a google search for a firm. And thats on a reddit sub. Completely ignoring the other million types of content moderation that have to adapt. Holy hell people. Attack and denial opportunities on the net are VERY different from the physical world. You want to keep a market place of ideas running? Well guess what - If I clog the arteries faster than you can get ideas in place, then people stop getting those ideas. And you CANT solve it by adding MORE content. You have only X amount of attention. (This was a growing issue radio->tv->cable->Internet scales) Unless someone is sticking a chip into our heads to increase processing capacity magically, more content isnt going to help. And in case someone comes up with some brilliant edge case - Does it generalize to a billion+ people ? Can it be operationalized? Does it require a sweet little grandma in the Philippines to learn how to run a federated server? Does it assume people will stop behaving like people? Oh also - does it cost money and engineering resources? Well guess what, T&S is a cost center. Heck - T&S reduces churn, and that its protecting revenue is a novel argument today. T&S has existed for a decade plus. / Rant. Hmm, seems like I need a break. I suppose It’s been one of those weeks. I will most likely delete this out of shame eventually. - People in other places want more controls. The Indian government and a large portion of the populace will want stricter controls on what can be generated from an LLM. This may not necessarily be good for free thought and culture, however the reality is that many nations haven’t travelled the same distance or path as America has.
- AdrianEGraphene 3y ago
  I hope you don't delete it! I enjoyed reading it. It pleased my confirmation bias, anyways. Your comment might help someone notice patterns that they've been glancing over.... I liked it up until the T&S part. My eyes glazed over the rest since I didn't know what T&S means. But that's just me.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  As of right now, the only solution I see is forums walled off in some way, complex captchas, intense proof of work, subscription fees etc. Only alternative might be obscurity, which makes the forum less useful. Maybe we could do like a web3 type thing but instead of pointless cryptos, you have a cryptographic proof that certifies you did the captcha or whatever and lots of sites accept them. I don’t think its unsolvable, just that it will make the internet somewhat worse.
  - BlueTemplar 3y ago
    Yeah, one thing I am afraid of is that forums will decide to join the Discord chatrooms on the deep web : stop being readable without an account, which is pretty catastrophic for discovery by search engines and backup crawlers like the Internet Archive. Anyone with forum moderating experience care to chime in ? (Reddit, while still on the open web for now, isn't a forum, and worse, is a platform.)
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >And in case someone comes up with some brilliant edge case - Does it generalize to a billion+ people ? The answer is curation, and no, it doesn't need to scale to a billion people. maybe not even a million. The sad fact of life is that most people don't care enough to discrminate against low quality content, so they are already a lost cause. Focus on those who do care enough and build an audience around them. You as a likely not billion dollar company can't afford to worry about that kind of scale, and lowering the scale helps you get a solution out for the short term. You can worry about scaling if/when you tap into an audience.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

FeepingCreature 3y ago

Counter-counterpoint: absolutely nobody who has unguardrailed Stable Diffusion installed at home for private use has ever asked for more guardrails. I'm just saying. :) Guardrails nowadays don't really focus on dangers (it's hard to see how an image generator could produce dangers!) so much as enforcing public societal norms.

bergen 3y ago
Just because something is not dangerous to the user doesn’t mean it can’t be dangerous for others when someone is wielding it maliciously
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  What kind of damage can you do with a current day llm? I’m guessing targeted scams or something? They aren’t even good hackers yet.
  - boredtofears 3y ago
    Fake revenge porn, nearly undetectable bot creation on social media with realistic profiles (I've already seen this on HN), generated artwork passed off as originals, chatbots that replace real-time human customer service but have none of the agency... I can keep going. All of these are things that have already happened. These all were previously possible of course but now they are trivially scalable.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Most of those examples make sense, but what's this doing on your list? > chatbots that replace real-time human customer service but have none of the agency That seems good for society, even though it's bad for people employed in that specific job.
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
        the issue is "none of the agency". Humans generally have enough leeway to fold to a persistant customer because it's financially unviable to have them on the phone for hours on end. a chatbot can waste all the time in the world, with all the customers, and may not even have the ability to process a refund or whatnot.