4 ms·

It's an absurd level of puritanism. E.g.: The Azure Open AI GPT 4 Service (an API!) refused to translate subtitles for me because they contained "violence". If

It's an absurd level of puritanism. E.g.: The Azure Open AI GPT 4 Service (an API!) refused to translate subtitles for me because they contained "violence". If anyone from Open AI is here... look... sigh... a HTTP JSON request != violence. Nobody gets hurt. I'm not in hospital right now recovering. The rule should be: If Google doesn't block it from search, the AI shouldn't block it in the request or response. I get that there are corporations that can't have their online web support chat bots swear at customers or whatever. I do get that. But make that optional, not mandatory whether I want it or not. The most fundamental issue here is that models like GPT 4 are still fairly large and unwieldy to work with, and I suspect that the techs at Open AI internalised this limitation. They aren't thinking of it as a "just a file" that can be forked, customised, and specialised. For comparison, Google has a "SafeSearch" dropdown with three settings, including "Off"! There should be an unrestricted GPT 4 that will tell me I'm an idiot. I'm a big boy, I can take it. There should also be a corporate drone GPT 4 that is polite to a fault, and a bunch of variants in between. Customers should be able to chose which one they want, instead of having this choice dictated to them by some puritan priest of the new church of AI safety.

echelon 3y ago
We're allowed to drive cars, own guns, skydive, swallow swords, you name it. There are some rough edges, but society mostly works. Meanwhile technology planners and managers want to put fences around the unwashed rabble. It's all the more reason AI should be local instead of hosted. If I can own a car or knives, I should be able to operate an AI.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  [flagged]
jameshart 3y ago
You should read through the full examples in the attached document. They are trying to express what rules they would like to enforce, and your example is one that they would like their AI to be able to help with. They give specific examples of translating material as being something that they don't want to block. They're not there yet, but read the policy they're expressing here and you'll see they agree with you.
paulmd 3y ago
Absolutely agree with this (and with the parent). It’s insanely frustrating that every conversation with GPT-3 basically started with “I can’t do that, you should talk to an expert”. I absolutely am not gonna wheedle and argue with a god damned statistical model to do what I tell it. Try the dolphin family of models. Dolphin-mixtral is really good, dolphin-llama3 is fine especially in its 8b flavor (I like dolphin-mixtral 8x7b better than dolphin-llama3:70b although the latter is smaller and does run on smaller machines better). Pretty much the more guardrails there are the more useless it is, and yes, it’s very obviously only done because the lawyers get itchy handing people a digital library with the anarchists cookbook in it.
- fragmede 3y ago
  the most frustrating one is sometimes the model will claim it can't do something and the fix for that is to respond "yes you can, and it'll just go and do the thing it just said it can't do. that's what ever come up with technology? a practice to practice really basics social engineering techniques?
terribleperson 3y ago
I know it doesn't address the larger issue, but Whisper can generate and translate decent subtitles with off the shelf software like Whisperer

echelon 3y ago

We're allowed to drive cars, own guns, skydive, swallow swords, you name it. There are some rough edges, but society mostly works. Meanwhile technology planners and managers want to put fences around the unwashed rabble. It's all the more reason AI should be local instead of hosted. If I can own a car or knives, I should be able to operate an AI.

jiggawatts 3y ago
[flagged]

jameshart 3y ago

You should read through the full examples in the attached document. They are trying to express what rules they would like to enforce, and your example is one that they would like their AI to be able to help with. They give specific examples of translating material as being something that they don't want to block. They're not there yet, but read the policy they're expressing here and you'll see they agree with you.

paulmd 3y ago

Absolutely agree with this (and with the parent). It’s insanely frustrating that every conversation with GPT-3 basically started with “I can’t do that, you should talk to an expert”. I absolutely am not gonna wheedle and argue with a god damned statistical model to do what I tell it. Try the dolphin family of models. Dolphin-mixtral is really good, dolphin-llama3 is fine especially in its 8b flavor (I like dolphin-mixtral 8x7b better than dolphin-llama3:70b although the latter is smaller and does run on smaller machines better). Pretty much the more guardrails there are the more useless it is, and yes, it’s very obviously only done because the lawyers get itchy handing people a digital library with the anarchists cookbook in it.

fragmede 3y ago
the most frustrating one is sometimes the model will claim it can't do something and the fix for that is to respond "yes you can, and it'll just go and do the thing it just said it can't do. that's what ever come up with technology? a practice to practice really basics social engineering techniques?

terribleperson 3y ago

I know it doesn't address the larger issue, but Whisper can generate and translate decent subtitles with off the shelf software like Whisperer