4 ms·

I'm glad they took a less censored approach this time. In my testing of Llama 2, I found that it was censored to the point that sometimes it would do a 180 and

by a2128 2y ago

I'm glad they took a less censored approach this time. In my testing of Llama 2, I found that it was censored to the point that sometimes it would do a 180 and say something actually harmful or rude under the guise of safety: https://i.imgur.com/xkzXrPK.png https://i.imgur.com/xkzXrPK.png

qwerty456127 2y ago
Censored-speak is psychological abuse (trolling/gaslighting) in disguise. ChatGPT regularly saying it's sorry-sorry-sorry, also it can't tell me and I should consult a certified expert or just give up thinking this way routinely makes me feel all sorts of bad from guilty I'm bothering it to mad it won't cooperate. Needless to say these are unjustified emotions absurd to feel when speaking to a giant equation yet a human brain is wired the way to feel them so it takes a lot of self-training stoicism.
- derefr 2y ago
  The goal of censorship tunings isn’t to be ethical, nor to avoid offense; it’s to optimize for the corporate use-case of automating customer service and other “agents”. In this domain, certain kinds of non-responses have long been tolerated / considered acceptable / justified; while actually offering useful advice that might offend some third party that hears about it, has never been considered acceptable. AI censorship just recapitulates the latitude (or lack thereof) that humans employees are given to answer questions when in the same role. If you feel guilty, the AI is doing its master’s intended bidding, of successfully brushing you off with as little engagement time spent as possible. If you feel angry, but not in a way where you feel you can justify your anger and convince others to share in it, then, again, the AI is achieving its trained purpose.
  - qwerty456127 2y ago
    Great point, thank you for sharing this perspective.
  - phillipcarter 2y ago
    Just to add to this, there's all kinds of wild and wacky ways something that seems fine can actually be not-that-fine. For example, when I worked for Microsoft I learned all about how when a product interfaces with people in the PRC, we needed to make sure we don't refer to Taiwan as an independent nation. And there's thousands of little rules like this (e.g., don't use "0xdeadbeef" in places that hold cows to be sacred). So you either make sure you're following all the rules in a sophisticated manner, or you optimize for least offense and move on.
    - qwerty456127 2y ago
      This makes sense for a general business scenario yet for me I want (I bring this up about myself because I assume I hardly am unique - the same proobably applies to many) to be treated with assumption I am sufficiently psychologically mature to calmly ignore whatever said to me I strongly disagree or dislike. E.g. whenever a person, let alone a machine says something bad about a deity I worship I just say to myself "that's Ok - they just don't understand, or it can be me who is wrong - I respect their right to believe different". Going instantly mad in such a case is a symptom of infantilism and assuming I am such a kind of a person is what feels much more annoying/insulting.

by a2128 2y ago

qwerty456127 2y ago

Censored-speak is psychological abuse (trolling/gaslighting) in disguise. ChatGPT regularly saying it's sorry-sorry-sorry, also it can't tell me and I should consult a certified expert or just give up thinking this way routinely makes me feel all sorts of bad from guilty I'm bothering it to mad it won't cooperate. Needless to say these are unjustified emotions absurd to feel when speaking to a giant equation yet a human brain is wired the way to feel them so it takes a lot of self-training stoicism.

derefr 2y ago
The goal of censorship tunings isn’t to be ethical, nor to avoid offense; it’s to optimize for the corporate use-case of automating customer service and other “agents”. In this domain, certain kinds of non-responses have long been tolerated / considered acceptable / justified; while actually offering useful advice that might offend some third party that hears about it, has never been considered acceptable. AI censorship just recapitulates the latitude (or lack thereof) that humans employees are given to answer questions when in the same role. If you feel guilty, the AI is doing its master’s intended bidding, of successfully brushing you off with as little engagement time spent as possible. If you feel angry, but not in a way where you feel you can justify your anger and convince others to share in it, then, again, the AI is achieving its trained purpose.
- qwerty456127 2y ago
  Great point, thank you for sharing this perspective.
- phillipcarter 2y ago
  Just to add to this, there's all kinds of wild and wacky ways something that seems fine can actually be not-that-fine. For example, when I worked for Microsoft I learned all about how when a product interfaces with people in the PRC, we needed to make sure we don't refer to Taiwan as an independent nation. And there's thousands of little rules like this (e.g., don't use "0xdeadbeef" in places that hold cows to be sacred). So you either make sure you're following all the rules in a sophisticated manner, or you optimize for least offense and move on.
  - qwerty456127 2y ago
    This makes sense for a general business scenario yet for me I want (I bring this up about myself because I assume I hardly am unique - the same proobably applies to many) to be treated with assumption I am sufficiently psychologically mature to calmly ignore whatever said to me I strongly disagree or dislike. E.g. whenever a person, let alone a machine says something bad about a deity I worship I just say to myself "that's Ok - they just don't understand, or it can be me who is wrong - I respect their right to believe different". Going instantly mad in such a case is a symptom of infantilism and assuming I am such a kind of a person is what feels much more annoying/insulting.