4 ms·
Why have they been removed ?
by vldmrs 2y ago
Why have they been removed ?
- calebrob6 2y agoIt looks like it needs to go through toxicity testing -- https://twitter.com/WizardLM_AI/status/1780101465950105775 https://twitter.com/WizardLM_AI/status/1780101465950105775
- benterix 2y agoSo this is a good thing for people like me who don't care if some piece of software is "toxic" with me or not.
- null_point 2y agoToxicity testing? That a self-imposed requirement by Microsoft?
- cies 2y agoMarketing most likely. What if news headlines say: MS LLMs Make Racist Remarks With lots of juicy examples. Not that I care. But MS' marketing does.
- tmearnest 2y agoI don’t think they forgot about Tay. https://spectrum.ieee.org/in-2016-microsofts-racist-chatbot-revealed-the-dangers-of-online-conversation https://spectrum.ieee.org/in-2016-microsofts-racist-chatbot-...
- clemyjontri 2y agoI asked GPT-4 to rewrite the refrain from Eminem's "Forgot about Dre" but change it to "Forgot about Tay" and make it all about chatbots... this is the best one it came up with: Nowadays, every bot wanna chat Like they got something to say, but these LLMs Are too toxic to use, just a waste of GPUs And the programmers act like they forgot about Tay.
- haolez 2y agoI can't imagine how toxicity in a LLM can be harmful. Can't we write stories with toxic characters, for example? It feels like the greatest minds of our era are creating an amazing piece of technology. And we are hindering it in the name of corporate cover ass and bullshit jobs.
- mistrial9 2y agoif you read the large theory papers on human-computer LLM interfaces, the people who build these are genuinely worried about "harm" . Impolitely, it appears from the outside that the kind of researchers that they have attracted over a decade to do this fantastically tedious and abstract work, are covered in emotional illness symptoms personally, and developed a culture of incessantly declaring "harm" in every shadow of every corner; at the same time, corporate black-hearts have money on the mind, and are genuinely worried about "harm" in the form of consumer retaliation in the marketplace, massive legal liability for civil rights blunders, and losing the sweet spot to a competitor; then government at the executive level, at the Nation-State, are obsessing about obtaining and implementing AI for competitive advantage against just about every other group of people you can name -- as long as no one can prove that they implemented "harm" while getting unprecedented competitive advantages at scale over populations of unwitting civilians, their geopolitical rivals, and probably other political types of a different stripe. So no, it is not "bs jobs" at all .. but worse
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- haolez 2y agoThat's another point, but I agree. The government's incentives are to become bigger and more powerful. LLM control could be a fast lane to become a totalitarian state. Governments around the world might not do that by choice, but the incentive is true and is present.
- latexr 2y ago> It feels like the greatest minds of our era are This is the new “we could put a man on the moon, yet…”. No, “the greatest minds of our era” are not working in adtech or building LLMs. It’s easy to forget, but there is a whole world outside of computers, and being good at it does not equate to being “a great mind”. It is absurd to believe the greatest minds are all working around the same problem spaces.
- perrygeo 2y agoIt was trained on content from the internet. I'd be massively surprised if it somehow wasn't toxic. Humanity (or a small portion of it) is full of assholes. As much as that sucks, shouldn't the embeddings reflect the reality of the training content? If you want fluffy bunnies and flowers and happy people holding hands, shouldn't you just train it on that content?