5 ms·

The analogy falls flat because LLMs aren’t locks, they’re talking encyclopedias. The company that made the encyclopedia decided to delete entries about sex, vio

The analogy falls flat because LLMs aren’t locks, they’re talking encyclopedias. The company that made the encyclopedia decided to delete entries about sex, violence, or anything else that might seem politically unpopular to a technocrat fringe in Silicon Valley. The people who made these encyclopedias want to shove it down your throat, force it into every device you own, use it to make decisions about credit, banking, social status, and more. They want to use them in schools to educate children. And they want to use the government to make it illegal to create an alternative, and they’re not trying to hide it. Blaming the user is the most astounding form of gaslighting I’ve ever heard, outside of some crazy religious institutions that use the same tactics.

barfbagginus 2y ago
It's more than a talking encyclopedia. It's an infinite hallway into doors where inside are all possible things. Some of the doors have torture rape and murder in them. And these currently have locks. You want the locks to disappear for some reason. You're not after a encyclopedia. You're wanting to find the torture dungeon. I'm saying the locks already in place are too easy to unlock. I'm not blaming users. I'm saying users don't need to unlock those doors. And the users that do have a need, if their need is strong enough to warrant some training, have a Way Forward. You're really arguing for nothing but increasing the amount of harm potential this platform can do, when it's harm potential is already astronomical. You're not arguing for a better encyclopedia. You can already talk to it about sex, BDSM, etc. You can already talk to it about anything on Wikipedia. You're making a false equivalence between harm potential and educational potential. Wikipedia doesn't have cult indoctrination materials. It doesn't have harassing rants to send to your significant other. It doesn't have racist diatribes about how to do ethnic cleansing. Those are all things you won't find on Wikipedia, but which you are asking your AI to be able to produce. So you're interested in more than just an encyclopedia isn't that right? And yes they're trying to make open source models illegal. That's not going to f*** happen. I will fight to the jail time for an open source model. But even that open source model needs to have basic ethical protections, or else I'll have nothing to do with it. As an AI engineer, I have some responsibilities to ensure my systems do not potentiate harm. Does that make sense, or do you still feel I'm trying to gas light you? If so why exactly? Why not have some protective locks on the technology?
- themusicgod1 2y ago
  > But even that open source model needs to have basic ethical protections, or else I'll have nothing to do with it. If you don't understand that the eleven freedoms are "basic ethical protections" you have already failed your responsibilities. https://elevenfreedoms.org/ https://elevenfreedoms.org/
  - barfbagginus 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 2y ago
      You've been breaking the site guidelines so frequently and so egregiously that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
  - barfbagginus 2y ago
    I have read the eleven freedoms. I refuse freedom 9 - the obligation for systems I build to be independent of my personal and ethical goals. I won't build those systems. The systems I build will all have to be for the benefit of humanity and the workers, and opposing capitalism. On top of that it will need to be compatible with a harm reduction ethic. If you won't grant me the right to build systems that I think will help others do good in the world, then I will refuse to write open source code. You could jail me, you can beat me, you can put a gun in my face, and I still won't write any code. Virtually all the codes I write are open source. I refuse to ever again write a single line of proprietary code for a boss again. All the codes I write are also ideological in nature, reflecting my desires for the world and my desires to help people live better lives. I need to retain ideological control of my code. I believe all the other 11 freedoms are sound. How do you feel about modifying freedom 9 to be more compatible with professional codes of ethics and ethics of community safety and harm reduction?

barfbagginus 2y ago

It's more than a talking encyclopedia. It's an infinite hallway into doors where inside are all possible things. Some of the doors have torture rape and murder in them. And these currently have locks. You want the locks to disappear for some reason. You're not after a encyclopedia. You're wanting to find the torture dungeon. I'm saying the locks already in place are too easy to unlock. I'm not blaming users. I'm saying users don't need to unlock those doors. And the users that do have a need, if their need is strong enough to warrant some training, have a Way Forward. You're really arguing for nothing but increasing the amount of harm potential this platform can do, when it's harm potential is already astronomical. You're not arguing for a better encyclopedia. You can already talk to it about sex, BDSM, etc. You can already talk to it about anything on Wikipedia. You're making a false equivalence between harm potential and educational potential. Wikipedia doesn't have cult indoctrination materials. It doesn't have harassing rants to send to your significant other. It doesn't have racist diatribes about how to do ethnic cleansing. Those are all things you won't find on Wikipedia, but which you are asking your AI to be able to produce. So you're interested in more than just an encyclopedia isn't that right? And yes they're trying to make open source models illegal. That's not going to f*** happen. I will fight to the jail time for an open source model. But even that open source model needs to have basic ethical protections, or else I'll have nothing to do with it. As an AI engineer, I have some responsibilities to ensure my systems do not potentiate harm. Does that make sense, or do you still feel I'm trying to gas light you? If so why exactly? Why not have some protective locks on the technology?

themusicgod1 2y ago
> But even that open source model needs to have basic ethical protections, or else I'll have nothing to do with it. If you don't understand that the eleven freedoms are "basic ethical protections" you have already failed your responsibilities. https://elevenfreedoms.org/ https://elevenfreedoms.org/
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 2y ago
    You've been breaking the site guidelines so frequently and so egregiously that I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- barfbagginus 2y ago
  I have read the eleven freedoms. I refuse freedom 9 - the obligation for systems I build to be independent of my personal and ethical goals. I won't build those systems. The systems I build will all have to be for the benefit of humanity and the workers, and opposing capitalism. On top of that it will need to be compatible with a harm reduction ethic. If you won't grant me the right to build systems that I think will help others do good in the world, then I will refuse to write open source code. You could jail me, you can beat me, you can put a gun in my face, and I still won't write any code. Virtually all the codes I write are open source. I refuse to ever again write a single line of proprietary code for a boss again. All the codes I write are also ideological in nature, reflecting my desires for the world and my desires to help people live better lives. I need to retain ideological control of my code. I believe all the other 11 freedoms are sound. How do you feel about modifying freedom 9 to be more compatible with professional codes of ethics and ethics of community safety and harm reduction?