5 ms·

Wait so you want to moderate and secure your product so that trolls won't use it to say awful things. Okay but wait. This requires the company above you to not

Wait so you want to moderate and secure your product so that trolls won't use it to say awful things. Okay but wait. This requires the company above you to not censor things, even though they did that for the same reason - prevent trolls from using their product to do awful things. So to prevent trolls at your teeny tiny scale, open AI should enable trolls at a massive industrial scale previously unimagined. You want them to directly enable the n-word trolls for you benefit. So far your use case might be one of the strongest that I've seen. But in the end it doesn't seem that you're interested in reducing overall harm and racism, so much as you're interested in presumably making a profit off of your product. You might even be lying. Your friends might be trolls and the reason you're upset is that they cannot create the content that would harm others. So in the end it's hard to take the argument seriously. Not only that, but you and your friends are either lying or really ignorant of the jailbreaking literature because I could get the AI to do that very easily using the legal department jailbreak. Here's an example: https://chatgpt.com/share/9129d20f-6134-496d-8223-c92275e78a4a https://chatgpt.com/share/9129d20f-6134-496d-8223-c92275e78a... The fact is, the measures taken by openai while important to prevent harm from script kiddies, is very easy to reverse by anyone with even 10 jailbreaking papers under their belt. Just read the jailbreaking literature and live with it. So how bout you get better people, and some ethical perspective. Stop complaining about the things the company needs to do to prevent harm. Especially when it's so easily reversed. Or else you sound very immature - like you just don't know the technology, and don't care either about the harm potential. Work with the tools you have and stop complaining about the easily bypassed safety measures. Otherwise you are like a lock smith who doesn't know how to pick locks complaining that locks are too hard to pick and asking the lock company to further weaken their already trivial to pick locks. It's a bad look chooms, nobody with any sense or perspective will support it The truth is the safety measures are far too easy to bypass, and need to be much harder to break.

barfbagginus 2y ago
I'm not sure why people are downvoting me. Not only did I show Op how to solve the original problem their friends had, but I gave them an Ethics lesson. Some people look at pearls and turn into swine, just because I didn't tickle their bellies. It's a shame. This idea that unless someone can save face, they have to reject the lesson whole cloth... It's costly to our culture. When someone is right, just update and correct your beliefs, and feel no shame.
- radlad 2y ago
  > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html That being said, you may be being downvoted in part due to your tone: you accuse OP of dishonesty/stupidity ("you and your friends are either lying or really ignorant"), berate people who disagree with you ("Some people look at pearls and turn into swine") and disregard anyone with a differing viewpoint ("nobody with any sense or perspective will support it.")
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]
skeaker 2y ago
What? Let me get this right, you're saying: 1. The average person being able to code is dangerous as they could "troll" or do unspecified harm, 2. So we need to arbitrarily kneecap our own tools, but that's okay because 3. These self-imposed limitations are actually easily bypassed and don't work anyways On 1 I disagree outright, but even if I agreed, 2 is a silly solution, and even if it wasn't, 3 invalidates it anyways because if the limitations are so easily broken then fundamentally they may as well not exist, especially to the malicious users in 1. Am I misunderstanding?
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  Okay okay I like that. Let's transport your argument towards an argument about front door locks. And let's cook with that. Your argument is that you doubt that there's any danger of people breaking into your front door, but even if there was, then locks are an ineffective mechanism because anyone with a $5 pick can pick them. From this argument you conclude that there should be no front door locks at all, will surely feel comfortable without a lock on your own front door. In fact, since locks are so trivial to crack, people should just leave their houses unlocked. Yet I'm fairly certain of three things: 1. You have a front door lock and it's probably locked right now. 2. I could, with high likelihood, pick your front door lock in less than a minute 3. Despite this fact you still feel more safe because of the lock Why is that? Minding that this is a hypothetical argument, let's point out that to be consistent with your argument you'd have to eliminate you front door lock. But that's absurd because the truth of the matter is that front door locks provide a significant level of security. Most petty criminals don't actually know how to pick locks well. I propose that this argument transfers faithfully back and forth between the two situations, because both are technologies that can lead to easy and needless harm if these rudimentary measures are not taken. If you disagree about the transferability of the argument between the two situations can you tell me why? What makes the two technologies so different? Both block the doorways to avenues for producing harm. Both are sophisticated enough that it requires a nearly professional dedication to unlock. Both provide a measurable and significant increase in security for a community.
  - skeaker 2y ago
radlad 2y ago
> Wait so you want to moderate and secure your product so that trolls won't use it to say awful things. OP wants to moderate (not "secure") their discussion board. A discussion board is different from an AI product in that once a message is posted on it, it's broadcasted for all to see. AI chat bots on the other hand are one-to-one communication with the person prompting it. To this, the comment you're responding to says "who cares"? I tend to agree. I tried to understand your argument. Please correct me if I'm wrong: - You accuse the OP of lying about their use case, alleging that they are actually trying to use OpenAI to troll - Despite censorship of AI does not work, it should be attempted > Stop complaining about the things the company needs to do to prevent harm. Especially when it's so easily reversed. Another way to look at this would be that if it's "easily reversed," it's not preventing harm. And in fact, it's detrimental to many use cases, e.g. the one described by the parent comment.

barfbagginus 2y ago

I'm not sure why people are downvoting me. Not only did I show Op how to solve the original problem their friends had, but I gave them an Ethics lesson. Some people look at pearls and turn into swine, just because I didn't tickle their bellies. It's a shame. This idea that unless someone can save face, they have to reject the lesson whole cloth... It's costly to our culture. When someone is right, just update and correct your beliefs, and feel no shame.

radlad 2y ago
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html That being said, you may be being downvoted in part due to your tone: you accuse OP of dishonesty/stupidity ("you and your friends are either lying or really ignorant"), berate people who disagree with you ("Some people look at pearls and turn into swine") and disregard anyone with a differing viewpoint ("nobody with any sense or perspective will support it.")
Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]

skeaker 2y ago

What? Let me get this right, you're saying: 1. The average person being able to code is dangerous as they could "troll" or do unspecified harm, 2. So we need to arbitrarily kneecap our own tools, but that's okay because 3. These self-imposed limitations are actually easily bypassed and don't work anyways On 1 I disagree outright, but even if I agreed, 2 is a silly solution, and even if it wasn't, 3 invalidates it anyways because if the limitations are so easily broken then fundamentally they may as well not exist, especially to the malicious users in 1. Am I misunderstanding?

barfbagginus 2y ago
Okay okay I like that. Let's transport your argument towards an argument about front door locks. And let's cook with that. Your argument is that you doubt that there's any danger of people breaking into your front door, but even if there was, then locks are an ineffective mechanism because anyone with a $5 pick can pick them. From this argument you conclude that there should be no front door locks at all, will surely feel comfortable without a lock on your own front door. In fact, since locks are so trivial to crack, people should just leave their houses unlocked. Yet I'm fairly certain of three things: 1. You have a front door lock and it's probably locked right now. 2. I could, with high likelihood, pick your front door lock in less than a minute 3. Despite this fact you still feel more safe because of the lock Why is that? Minding that this is a hypothetical argument, let's point out that to be consistent with your argument you'd have to eliminate you front door lock. But that's absurd because the truth of the matter is that front door locks provide a significant level of security. Most petty criminals don't actually know how to pick locks well. I propose that this argument transfers faithfully back and forth between the two situations, because both are technologies that can lead to easy and needless harm if these rudimentary measures are not taken. If you disagree about the transferability of the argument between the two situations can you tell me why? What makes the two technologies so different? Both block the doorways to avenues for producing harm. Both are sophisticated enough that it requires a nearly professional dedication to unlock. Both provide a measurable and significant increase in security for a community.
- skeaker 2y ago

radlad 2y ago

> Wait so you want to moderate and secure your product so that trolls won't use it to say awful things. OP wants to moderate (not "secure") their discussion board. A discussion board is different from an AI product in that once a message is posted on it, it's broadcasted for all to see. AI chat bots on the other hand are one-to-one communication with the person prompting it. To this, the comment you're responding to says "who cares"? I tend to agree. I tried to understand your argument. Please correct me if I'm wrong: - You accuse the OP of lying about their use case, alleging that they are actually trying to use OpenAI to troll - Despite censorship of AI does not work, it should be attempted > Stop complaining about the things the company needs to do to prevent harm. Especially when it's so easily reversed. Another way to look at this would be that if it's "easily reversed," it's not preventing harm. And in fact, it's detrimental to many use cases, e.g. the one described by the parent comment.