9 ms·

> If your implication is that as a tool, LLMs shouldn't have safeties built in that is a pretty asinine take. We build and invest in safety in tools across ever

> If your implication is that as a tool, LLMs shouldn't have safeties built in that is a pretty asinine take. We build and invest in safety in tools across every spectrum. Sure. Railings so people don't fall off catwalks, guards so people using the table saw don't chop off fingers. But these "safeties" aren't safeties at all... because regardless of whether they're in place or not, the results are just strings of words. It's a little bit revealing, I think, that so many people want that others shouldn't get straight answers to questions. What is it that you're afraid that they'll ask? It'd be one thing if you insisted the models be modified so that they're factually correct. If someone asks "what's a fun thing to do on a Saturday night that won't get me into too much trouble" it probably shouldn't answer "go murder orphans and sell their corneas to rich evil people on the black market". But when I ask "what's going on in Israel and Palestine", the idea that it should be lobotomized and say "I'm afraid that I can't answer that, as it seems you're trying to elicit material that might be used for antisemitic purposes" is the asinine thing. Societies that value freedom of speech and thought shouldn't be like this. > If you want a tool without a specific safety measure, then learn how to build them. This is good advice, given in bad faith. Even should the physical hardware be available to do that for any given person, the know-how's hard to come by. And I'm sure that many models are either already censored or soon will be for anyone asking "how do I go about building my own model without safety guards". We might even soon see legislation to that effect.

ygjb 2y ago
> Societies that value freedom of speech and thought shouldn't be like this. There is nothing preventing an individual using a computer to generate hateful content, this is absolutely evidenced by the absolute glut of hateful content on the internet. My freedom of movement is not practically limited by the fact that if my car breaks down, I don't have the knowledge or tools to repair my car effectively - I still have two feet and a heartbeat, and it might take longer to get there, but I can go where I want (modulo private property and national borders). Societies that value freedom of speech and thought should also be equally opposed to compelled speech, while model censorship is frustrating and challenging to work with, expecting to, or forcing a researcher, or a business to publish uncensored models is a form of compelled speech. There is absolutely nothing stopping a reasonably competent technologist from implementing simple models, and the only thing stopping a reasonably competent technologist from building an LLM is financial resources. There is a broad set of resources to learn how to train and use models, and while an individual researcher may be challenged to product the next model competitive with current OpenAI, Anthropic, or other models, that is again a resource issue. If your complaint is that resource issues are holding people back, I may want you to expand on your critique of capitalism in general :P > This is good advice, given in bad faith. Even should the physical hardware be available to do that for any given person, the know-how's hard to come by. It's absolutely not a bad faith argument. The know-how is hard to come by has been a compelling competitive advantage since the first proto-guilds sought to protect their skills and income in Mesopotamia (and probably before that, but they hadn't figured out a durable means of writing yet). In the modern parlance if someone can't Git Gud, that's not any researchers, or any businesses problem in terms of access to uncensored models. Yeah, regulation is probably coming, but unless you're argument is that models are entities entitled to free speech, no ones freedom of expression is actually inhibited by not having access to tools to use generative AI technologies to generate content. People who can't create or jailbreak their own models to do it for them are still free to write their own manifestos, or make adult collages of the object of their fantasies. It just takes a bit more work.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  << are still free to write their own manifestos, or make adult collages of the object of their fantasies. It just takes a bit more work. This is the standard 'just start your own microservice/server/isp' and now it includes llm. Where does it end really? The generic point is that it shouldn't take more work. A knife shouldn't come with a safety mechanism that automatically detects you are not actually cutting porkchop. It is just bad design and a bad idea. It undermines what it means to be a conscious human being. Unless.. we don't agree on that and humans must be kept under close scrutiny to ensure they do not deviate from carefully scripted paths.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Somewhere in the UK someone is working on that knife safety.
  - matt-attack 2y ago
    I agree - but where we are with LLM is even worse than your hypothetical knife. The knife is a real object - what we're talking about is the censorship of thoughts and ideas. What else is the written word but that? How did a society that was established on free-speech just decided that the written word was so dangerous all of a sudden? How manipulative is it to even use the word "danger" with respect to text. The distain one must have for free-speech to even think that danger enters into the equation.
    - ygjb 2y ago
      Who is being censored if an LLM is not able to generate inferences about a specific topic? The information the user of the LLM is still available, just not through that particular interface. The interactions the user of the LLM is seeking are not available, but that interaction is not an original thought or idea of the user, since they are asking the LLM to infer or synthesize new content. > How did a society that was established on free-speech just decided that the written word was so dangerous all of a sudden? The written word has absolutely always been dangerous. This idea is captured succinctly in the expression "The pen is mightier than the sword."; ideas are dangerous to those with power, that is why freedom of expression is so important. > The disdain one must have for free-speech to even think that danger enters into the equation. This is asinine. You want dangerous text? Here is a fill in the blanks that someone can complete. f"I will pay ${amount} for {illegal_job} to do {illegal_thing} to {targeted_group} by or on {date} at {location}." Turning that into an actual sentence, with intent behind it would be a crime in many jurisdictions, and that is one of the most simple, contrived examples. Speech, especially inciting speech, is a form of violence, and it runs head long into freedom of speech or freedom of expression, but it's important to for societies to find ways to hold the demagogues that rile people into harmful action accountable.
ben_w 2y ago
> just strings of words. How did every non-inherited national leader, both democratic and dictatorial, both Roosevelt and Stalin, manage to become leader in the first place? Convincing people with the right string of words. How does every single religious leader on earth, big and small, from the Pope to Jim Jones, get that power? Convincing people with the right string of words. What is a contract, what is source code, what is a law? The right string of words. There is no "just" when it comes to words. That why they are important to protect, it is why dictators are afraid of them, and it's why it matters that we don't treat a magic box spewing them out faster than a machine gun does bullets as harmless.
- N0b8ez 2y ago
  It seems to cut both ways. If words are powerful, restricting words is also powerful. It's not clear why this leads to a pro-censorship stance, any more than to an anti-censorship one.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Oh indeed. That's why dictators both censor and propagandise. It's a narrow path, absolutely a challenge to walk without slipping, and not one I feel confident of humanity rising to even as a team effort. Just like the difference between liberty and authoritarianism in general: much as I'd like to be an anarchist in theory, in practice that's just a way to let people with big sticks take over.
- tmcdos 2y ago
  It is quite obvious that the issue is inside the people - not inside the words. People have the ultimate power (a gift by God) to make decisions. Words can not force someone to do something - they are just sitting right there, doing nothing. Humans have flaws (probably by design - who knows) - and these flaws are the ones that all "safety" intentions MUST address. But 90% of humans prefer the easy path.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Even with that attitude, the human flaws that make them act on those words, are known, and are exploitable and exploited. If someone makes a device which is only safe when used safely, and they give it out to all despite being told of the risks, I think they are (or should be) liable for the misuse. > a gift by God I don't know which religion you follow. ᚦᛟᚱ᛬ᛟᚷ᛬ᛚᛟᚲᛁ᛬ᚺᛖᛁᛚᛊᚨ. If you want a biblical reference, parable of the sower is just as valid when it's the word of satan.

ygjb 2y ago

> Societies that value freedom of speech and thought shouldn't be like this. There is nothing preventing an individual using a computer to generate hateful content, this is absolutely evidenced by the absolute glut of hateful content on the internet. My freedom of movement is not practically limited by the fact that if my car breaks down, I don't have the knowledge or tools to repair my car effectively - I still have two feet and a heartbeat, and it might take longer to get there, but I can go where I want (modulo private property and national borders). Societies that value freedom of speech and thought should also be equally opposed to compelled speech, while model censorship is frustrating and challenging to work with, expecting to, or forcing a researcher, or a business to publish uncensored models is a form of compelled speech. There is absolutely nothing stopping a reasonably competent technologist from implementing simple models, and the only thing stopping a reasonably competent technologist from building an LLM is financial resources. There is a broad set of resources to learn how to train and use models, and while an individual researcher may be challenged to product the next model competitive with current OpenAI, Anthropic, or other models, that is again a resource issue. If your complaint is that resource issues are holding people back, I may want you to expand on your critique of capitalism in general :P > This is good advice, given in bad faith. Even should the physical hardware be available to do that for any given person, the know-how's hard to come by. It's absolutely not a bad faith argument. The know-how is hard to come by has been a compelling competitive advantage since the first proto-guilds sought to protect their skills and income in Mesopotamia (and probably before that, but they hadn't figured out a durable means of writing yet). In the modern parlance if someone can't Git Gud, that's not any researchers, or any businesses problem in terms of access to uncensored models. Yeah, regulation is probably coming, but unless you're argument is that models are entities entitled to free speech, no ones freedom of expression is actually inhibited by not having access to tools to use generative AI technologies to generate content. People who can't create or jailbreak their own models to do it for them are still free to write their own manifestos, or make adult collages of the object of their fantasies. It just takes a bit more work.

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
<< are still free to write their own manifestos, or make adult collages of the object of their fantasies. It just takes a bit more work. This is the standard 'just start your own microservice/server/isp' and now it includes llm. Where does it end really? The generic point is that it shouldn't take more work. A knife shouldn't come with a safety mechanism that automatically detects you are not actually cutting porkchop. It is just bad design and a bad idea. It undermines what it means to be a conscious human being. Unless.. we don't agree on that and humans must be kept under close scrutiny to ensure they do not deviate from carefully scripted paths.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Somewhere in the UK someone is working on that knife safety.
- matt-attack 2y ago
  I agree - but where we are with LLM is even worse than your hypothetical knife. The knife is a real object - what we're talking about is the censorship of thoughts and ideas. What else is the written word but that? How did a society that was established on free-speech just decided that the written word was so dangerous all of a sudden? How manipulative is it to even use the word "danger" with respect to text. The distain one must have for free-speech to even think that danger enters into the equation.
  - ygjb 2y ago
    Who is being censored if an LLM is not able to generate inferences about a specific topic? The information the user of the LLM is still available, just not through that particular interface. The interactions the user of the LLM is seeking are not available, but that interaction is not an original thought or idea of the user, since they are asking the LLM to infer or synthesize new content. > How did a society that was established on free-speech just decided that the written word was so dangerous all of a sudden? The written word has absolutely always been dangerous. This idea is captured succinctly in the expression "The pen is mightier than the sword."; ideas are dangerous to those with power, that is why freedom of expression is so important. > The disdain one must have for free-speech to even think that danger enters into the equation. This is asinine. You want dangerous text? Here is a fill in the blanks that someone can complete. f"I will pay ${amount} for {illegal_job} to do {illegal_thing} to {targeted_group} by or on {date} at {location}." Turning that into an actual sentence, with intent behind it would be a crime in many jurisdictions, and that is one of the most simple, contrived examples. Speech, especially inciting speech, is a form of violence, and it runs head long into freedom of speech or freedom of expression, but it's important to for societies to find ways to hold the demagogues that rile people into harmful action accountable.

ben_w 2y ago

> just strings of words. How did every non-inherited national leader, both democratic and dictatorial, both Roosevelt and Stalin, manage to become leader in the first place? Convincing people with the right string of words. How does every single religious leader on earth, big and small, from the Pope to Jim Jones, get that power? Convincing people with the right string of words. What is a contract, what is source code, what is a law? The right string of words. There is no "just" when it comes to words. That why they are important to protect, it is why dictators are afraid of them, and it's why it matters that we don't treat a magic box spewing them out faster than a machine gun does bullets as harmless.

N0b8ez 2y ago
It seems to cut both ways. If words are powerful, restricting words is also powerful. It's not clear why this leads to a pro-censorship stance, any more than to an anti-censorship one.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Oh indeed. That's why dictators both censor and propagandise. It's a narrow path, absolutely a challenge to walk without slipping, and not one I feel confident of humanity rising to even as a team effort. Just like the difference between liberty and authoritarianism in general: much as I'd like to be an anarchist in theory, in practice that's just a way to let people with big sticks take over.
tmcdos 2y ago
It is quite obvious that the issue is inside the people - not inside the words. People have the ultimate power (a gift by God) to make decisions. Words can not force someone to do something - they are just sitting right there, doing nothing. Humans have flaws (probably by design - who knows) - and these flaws are the ones that all "safety" intentions MUST address. But 90% of humans prefer the easy path.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Even with that attitude, the human flaws that make them act on those words, are known, and are exploitable and exploited. If someone makes a device which is only safe when used safely, and they give it out to all despite being told of the risks, I think they are (or should be) liable for the misuse. > a gift by God I don't know which religion you follow. ᚦᛟᚱ᛬ᛟᚷ᛬ᛚᛟᚲᛁ᛬ᚺᛖᛁᛚᛊᚨ. If you want a biblical reference, parable of the sower is just as valid when it's the word of satan.