3 ms·

Actual title is "not very censored" which makes a big difference. And the examples are about overreactions in llama2 more than censorship in llama3. It's defini

by andy99 3y ago

Actual title is "not very censored" which makes a big difference. And the examples are about overreactions in llama2 more than censorship in llama3. It's definitely still censored, it's just better at "false refusal".

lumost 3y ago
llama2 was kinda weird. I work on postgres internals for a living, I asked it information about a postgres internal function - it responded that it was unethical to ask about private/internal postgres functions. It then proceeded to expound on the perceived ethics of the situation.
- mhh__ 3y ago
  In the very early days of llama2 at least it refused to write poetry on the basis that it was improper to do so
  - andrelaszlo 3y ago
    LLM poetry is still quite vogonic, so perhaps it was an ethically sound refusal?
- gryn 3y ago
  That not just a llama specific thing most llama do it. I've had that with openAI and gemini too. It just seems like their way to virtue signal while covering their ass legally.
  - ranyume 3y ago
    I believe that's only half the issue. I'm suspecting companies don't actually know how to make an "uncensored" model (a model that acts like a tool, not refusing anything). The way the refusals are phrased and how they respond if you press them to explain themselves is just too quirky to me. Even though the models respond with "I'm a model" in my tests they get pretty emotional in their refusals. "I feel uncomfortable with that". This makes me think there's something wrong in their training process that's making these refusals. Or at least it's making refusals less predictable (false positives).
lolinder 3y ago
> Actual title is "not very censored" which makes a big difference. To anyone else who's confused by this comment: dang changed the title so now it reads differently than what OP saw. I think based on this conversation [0] that at the time of writing the title would have been "Llama 3 is not censored". Software stripped "very" out, then dang replaced the title with the first sentence. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40093227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40093227

by andy99 3y ago

lumost 3y ago

llama2 was kinda weird. I work on postgres internals for a living, I asked it information about a postgres internal function - it responded that it was unethical to ask about private/internal postgres functions. It then proceeded to expound on the perceived ethics of the situation.

mhh__ 3y ago
In the very early days of llama2 at least it refused to write poetry on the basis that it was improper to do so
- andrelaszlo 3y ago
  LLM poetry is still quite vogonic, so perhaps it was an ethically sound refusal?
gryn 3y ago
That not just a llama specific thing most llama do it. I've had that with openAI and gemini too. It just seems like their way to virtue signal while covering their ass legally.
- ranyume 3y ago
  I believe that's only half the issue. I'm suspecting companies don't actually know how to make an "uncensored" model (a model that acts like a tool, not refusing anything). The way the refusals are phrased and how they respond if you press them to explain themselves is just too quirky to me. Even though the models respond with "I'm a model" in my tests they get pretty emotional in their refusals. "I feel uncomfortable with that". This makes me think there's something wrong in their training process that's making these refusals. Or at least it's making refusals less predictable (false positives).

lolinder 3y ago

> Actual title is "not very censored" which makes a big difference. To anyone else who's confused by this comment: dang changed the title so now it reads differently than what OP saw. I think based on this conversation [0] that at the time of writing the title would have been "Llama 3 is not censored". Software stripped "very" out, then dang replaced the title with the first sentence. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40093227 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40093227