If I may explain: the dystopian part to me is the lack of transparency around training code, training data sources, tuning, meta prompting, and so forth. In Goo

If I may explain: the dystopian part to me is the lack of transparency around training code, training data sources, tuning, meta prompting, and so forth. In Google’s case, they’re a large corporation that controls how much of society accesses information. If they’re secretly curating what that information is, rather than presenting it as neutrally as they can, it does feel dystopian to me. I’d like transparency as a consumer of information, so I know to the extent possible, what the sources of information were or how I am being manipulated by choices the humans building these systems made. I appreciate the issue you’re drawing attention to in the example you shared about images of an angry person. I think I agree that focused tuning for situations like that might be noble and I would be okay with a model correcting for that specific example you shared. But I also struggle with how to clearly draw that line where such tuning may go too far, which is why I favor less manual biasing. But I disagree that such tuning should be required, if you meant required by the law. Like with speech or art in general, I think anyone should be able to produce software systems that generate controversial or offensive speech or art. Individual consumers can choose what they want to interact with, and reject LLMs that don’t meet their personal standards.