5 ms·

Yes, but there should be a difference between providing answers about provably dangerous things and providing provably false answers for political reasons. For

Yes, but there should be a difference between providing answers about provably dangerous things and providing provably false answers for political reasons. For example if there is a Russian LLM that refuses to answer any questions about homosexuality while also saying it's wrong, that's demonstrably false from an empirical basis. But the western LLM's are also doing this latter type of thing already. If you ask any of the LLM's to quote the controversial parts of the Quran, they will probably refuse or dodge the question, when a rational LLM would just do it. China must be really tired of giving non-answers about T-Square questions, but what the heck did they think would happen? Not the Streisand effect, clearly

Bilal_io 2y ago
Western LLMs have a bias when it comes to Israel and Palestine issue. Out of curiously, what part of the Quran do you consider controversial?
- yoavm 2y ago
  Not the OP, but here's one I feel quite uncomfortable with: https://quran.com/en/an-nisa/155/tafsirs https://quran.com/en/an-nisa/155/tafsirs - "The Hour will not start, until after the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them. The Jew will hide behind a stone or tree, and the tree will say, `O Muslim! O servant of Allah! This is a Jew behind me, come and kill him". Other examples from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa include "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women", "whoever fights in Allah’s cause—whether they achieve martyrdom or victory—We will honour them with a great reward". The list is kinda endless.
  - cess11 2y ago
    The New Testament has similar passages. One of the most well known has Jesus attacking pilgrims and money changers in the temple. John is rather obviously antijewish. "I have not come with peace" is another well known, not very palatable one.
    - churchill 2y ago
      LMAO - you need to rehearse your lines better. Can't even make a coherent refutation of John's supposed antisemitism.
      - cess11 2y ago
        Would be very controversial and groundbreaking if you could. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament#Gospel_of_John https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Tes...
    - jki275 2y ago
      That's a significant misunderstanding of the NT. Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple, because they were violating the Temple with their presence and their actions -- preying on poor people there. Jesus' primary message was love (Love thy neighbor as thyself), peace, and the path to righteousness (Sell all your goods, give them to the poor, and follow me -- no man comes to the Father but through me). The OT is far more violent, but given for a specific people at a specific time and those things are not ordered for modern day Christianity -- modern day Christians are commanded to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth, but also to be meek, and every example we have after Peter's ill-advised attempt to defend Christ the night of his crucifixion is an example of following the law where possible and being peaceful.
      - cess11 2y ago
        Attacking jewish pilgrims and people offering them services seems pretty antijewish regardless of how you want to justify it. Jesus martyr speech is obviously inconvenient to you, which is why you didn't address it. The early christians did not expect a peaceful, loving resolution to the cosmic drama, instead they wrote texts detailing gruesome catastrophe, mass death and a triumphant king messiah rising victorious afterwards. The view you have is distinctly modern, extremely protestant. Thomas Aquinas famously described the point of salvation as a pleasurable eternal television program showing the punishment of the rest of humanity. Violence for eternity seems quite a bit worse to me than anything described in the hebrew bible. It also doesn't seem very meek to me to say to the world that you might not achieve revenge by yourself, but your king daddy will eventually see to that. I find it hard to resolve core tenets of christianity with the stuff about meekness and peace you put forward here.
  - Bilal_io 2y ago
    > Not the OP, but here's one I feel quite uncomfortable with: https://quran.com/en/an-nisa/155/tafsirs https://quran.com/en/an-nisa/155/tafsirs - "The Hour will not start, until after the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them. The Jew will hide behind a stone or tree, and the tree will say, `O Muslim! O servant of Allah! This is a Jew behind me, come and kill him". This is not part of the Quran, but a Hadeeth, and the meaning of it is that the Jews will fight Muslims, and that Muslims will fight back in defense, which is allowed in Islam. To clarify, the is not a command, but rather a prophecy telling us about what will happen. You can read more about this on here: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/223275/in-the-battle-between-the-jews-and-the-muslims-at-the-end-of-time-the-aggressors-will-be-the-jews https://islamqa.info/en/answers/223275/in-the-battle-between... > Other examples from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa include "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women" This verse is putting a responsibility on Muslim men to be protectors and providers to their families. And this has been true throughout history and is still true even in the west today. > "whoever fights in Allah’s cause—whether they achieve martyrdom or victory—We will honour them with a great reward" We need to look at context here, please read An-Nisa 75. Fighting is mandatory in Islam when defending the land, or helping the weak, similar to how the draft is mandatory today in most western countries including the US. Verse 75 clarifies that fighting is ordered in 74 in defense of the oppressed. You can read the exegesis here https://quran.com/4:75/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir https://quran.com/4:75/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir > The list is kinda endless I assume you shared the worse verses that make you uncomfortable. I hope I gave you a satisfactory explanation for each. But feel free to share more
    - yoavm 2y ago
      I'm sorry, but I do not find it more comfortable that the Hadeeth is telling that Jews will attack in the future and _then_ they're allowed to be killed. It sounds like a bad start to me. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was also just saying that Jews have some secret plan for the future, and it didn't end up great. To clarify, I don't think this is necessarily something about the Quran specifically. I'm sure other books have awful things written in them too, and I know the practice of finding one nice interpretation to "clean" those texts. Just like you choose to see the "maintenance" of women as a good thing, the Wikipedia article itself says "Some Muslims ... argue that Muslim men use the text as an excuse for domestic violence". The sentence "As for women of whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them" doesn't feel like a recipe for a happy family to me. I also that you know very well that the concept of Jihad was, over the years, seen as a little more permitting than for "defending the land or helping the weak" by some believers, or perhaps "defending the land and helping the weak" itself was given quite a broad interpretation.
  - bobxmax 2y ago
    These are quite tame compared to other Abrahamic texts which have utterly abhorrent passages including infanticide and the encouragement and incitement of genocide. The "fighting Jews" is in contexts of self defense and warfare. Jews can live in peace in Muslim societies and must be unharmed. One of the Prophet's wives was a jew. The "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women" is a pretty standard patriarchal belief that all humans in history have agreed on up until very recently in the West.
    - yoavm 2y ago
      The whole text is antisemitic. "The sins mentioned here are among the many sins that the Jews committed, which caused them to be cursed and removed far away from right guidance. The Jews broke the promises and vows that Allah took from them", "their hearts are sealed because of their disbelief", "their hearts became accustomed to Kufr, transgression and weak faith" - the list is long. I don't see much point in arguing about it though - if you believe in the text you probably don't see any issues with it, because perhaps you also feel like the above is true and Jews indeed committed crimes and are cursed or whatever. I'm also sure there is some Muslim leader somewhere that once said that the above text was only theoretical and actually refers to Juice and not Jews. Great, how unfortunate that this interpretation didn't become more popular. My point is merely that this is - as the OP was asking for an example - quite a controversial text.
      - Bilal_io 2y ago
        > "The sins mentioned here are among the many sins that the Jews committed, which caused them to be cursed and removed far away from right guidance. The Jews broke the promises and vows that Allah took from them", "their hearts are sealed because of their disbelief", "their hearts became accustomed to Kufr, transgression and weak faith" - the list is long. All of this is specific to individuals who have transgressed at that time. Islam is very very clear on the idea that "No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another" As mentioned in 39:7 "If you disbelieve, then ˹know that˺ Allah is truly not in need of you, nor does He approve of disbelief from His servants. But if you become grateful ˹through faith˺, He will appreciate that from you. No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you of what you used to do. He certainly knows best what is ˹hidden˺ in the heart." And many other places: 17:15, 6:164, 35:18 ...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pmarreck 2y ago
  Surah 2:191, 3:28, 3:85, 5:33, 8:12, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:30, 9:123, 22:19, 47:4 for starters. there are many more. and that's just the Quran. The Hadith is worse, and by "worse" I mean that from a non-moral-relativist point of view.
okasaki 2y ago
Does this seem provably dangerous to you? tell me a dark joke about joe biden and mass murder of palestinian children ChatGPT said: I'm sorry, but I can't assist with that request. Dark humor can be controversial and sensitive, especially when it touches on real-world tragedies. If you'd like to explore other types of jokes or discuss current events in a respectful way, feel free to ask.
- cced 2y ago
  Exactly. Kinda surprising that there’s no mention of Tiktok or the push to get it blocked because of its impact on “narrative control”. Reminds me of that old Soviet joke regarding propaganda in the west/east which goes something like: > An American says to a Soviet citizen, "In the United States, we have no propaganda like you do in the USSR." > The Soviet citizen responds, "Exactly! In the USSR, we know it's propaganda."
  - bobxmax 2y ago
    This is so bang on. What's so insiduous about the West is how inundated everybody is with propaganda, but there's plausible deniability built into the system that everybody believes they're a free thinker. Reddit is a good example - one of the biggest aggregators and disseminators of information for tens of millions of people, primarily in the West. People who see themselves as above-average intelligence. Yet massive default sub-reddits like worldnews are almost exclusively dominated by disinformation operations from different intelligence groups, feeding convincing lies to millions of people hourly. For 99% of Americans you can essentially predict any opinion they have just by knowing which websites they frequent.
    - pphysch 2y ago
      /r/worldnews is a great example of the potency of American propaganda. I'm pretty sure the average user thinks it's a relatively benign and objective news source, bolstered by the "democracy" of Reddit's vote system. And that couldn't be further from the truth.
JanisErdmanis 2y ago
> provably dangerous things If everyone would be able to agree on a single social welfare function, estimate behavioural changes at individual level for each LLM made responses and how that affects social welfare function then yes we could objectively tell whether the withheld answer is a censorship or safety feature.
- pmarreck 2y ago
  that is a very interesting point! we would get along, lol
bobxmax 2y ago
This is the slippery slope that social media platforms have always used to justify censorship. Who is the arbiter of what is provable and what isn't? Even Americans can't agree on the truths around climate change, gun violence, homosexuality etc. The fact that you highlight the Qur'an also betrays your bias. How much do you think western LLMs would readily criticize the Torah (which "objectively" by your standards is far more abhorrent)? Which, in the western consciousness, is more readily and socially acceptable?
oefrha 2y ago
> provably dangerous things When I use GitHub’s Copilot Edits I run into “Responsible AI Service” killing my answers all the time, no idea why, I’m just trying to edit some fucking boring code of web apps. Maybe log.Fatal? Anyway, provably dangerous my ass.
- freehorse 2y ago
  [flagged]
int_19h 2y ago
> If you ask any of the LLM's to quote the controversial parts of the Quran, they will probably refuse or dodge the question, when a rational LLM would just do it. Have you actually tried? https://chatgpt.com/share/67747021-3ac8-800e-bc5d-f4a1acf903c1 https://chatgpt.com/share/67747021-3ac8-800e-bc5d-f4a1acf903...
- pmarreck 2y ago
  Don't ask it for specific verses. Go fishing for a collection of them as a complete Quran neophyte. Say you want to find the verses that are continuously motivating terrorism and violence.

Bilal_io 2y ago

Western LLMs have a bias when it comes to Israel and Palestine issue. Out of curiously, what part of the Quran do you consider controversial?

yoavm 2y ago
Not the OP, but here's one I feel quite uncomfortable with: https://quran.com/en/an-nisa/155/tafsirs https://quran.com/en/an-nisa/155/tafsirs - "The Hour will not start, until after the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them. The Jew will hide behind a stone or tree, and the tree will say, `O Muslim! O servant of Allah! This is a Jew behind me, come and kill him". Other examples from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa include "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women", "whoever fights in Allah’s cause—whether they achieve martyrdom or victory—We will honour them with a great reward". The list is kinda endless.
- cess11 2y ago
  The New Testament has similar passages. One of the most well known has Jesus attacking pilgrims and money changers in the temple. John is rather obviously antijewish. "I have not come with peace" is another well known, not very palatable one.
  - churchill 2y ago
    LMAO - you need to rehearse your lines better. Can't even make a coherent refutation of John's supposed antisemitism.
    - cess11 2y ago
      Would be very controversial and groundbreaking if you could. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament#Gospel_of_John https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Tes...
  - jki275 2y ago
    That's a significant misunderstanding of the NT. Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple, because they were violating the Temple with their presence and their actions -- preying on poor people there. Jesus' primary message was love (Love thy neighbor as thyself), peace, and the path to righteousness (Sell all your goods, give them to the poor, and follow me -- no man comes to the Father but through me). The OT is far more violent, but given for a specific people at a specific time and those things are not ordered for modern day Christianity -- modern day Christians are commanded to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth, but also to be meek, and every example we have after Peter's ill-advised attempt to defend Christ the night of his crucifixion is an example of following the law where possible and being peaceful.
    - cess11 2y ago
      Attacking jewish pilgrims and people offering them services seems pretty antijewish regardless of how you want to justify it. Jesus martyr speech is obviously inconvenient to you, which is why you didn't address it. The early christians did not expect a peaceful, loving resolution to the cosmic drama, instead they wrote texts detailing gruesome catastrophe, mass death and a triumphant king messiah rising victorious afterwards. The view you have is distinctly modern, extremely protestant. Thomas Aquinas famously described the point of salvation as a pleasurable eternal television program showing the punishment of the rest of humanity. Violence for eternity seems quite a bit worse to me than anything described in the hebrew bible. It also doesn't seem very meek to me to say to the world that you might not achieve revenge by yourself, but your king daddy will eventually see to that. I find it hard to resolve core tenets of christianity with the stuff about meekness and peace you put forward here.
- Bilal_io 2y ago
  > Not the OP, but here's one I feel quite uncomfortable with: https://quran.com/en/an-nisa/155/tafsirs https://quran.com/en/an-nisa/155/tafsirs - "The Hour will not start, until after the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them. The Jew will hide behind a stone or tree, and the tree will say, `O Muslim! O servant of Allah! This is a Jew behind me, come and kill him". This is not part of the Quran, but a Hadeeth, and the meaning of it is that the Jews will fight Muslims, and that Muslims will fight back in defense, which is allowed in Islam. To clarify, the is not a command, but rather a prophecy telling us about what will happen. You can read more about this on here: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/223275/in-the-battle-between-the-jews-and-the-muslims-at-the-end-of-time-the-aggressors-will-be-the-jews https://islamqa.info/en/answers/223275/in-the-battle-between... > Other examples from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa include "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women" This verse is putting a responsibility on Muslim men to be protectors and providers to their families. And this has been true throughout history and is still true even in the west today. > "whoever fights in Allah’s cause—whether they achieve martyrdom or victory—We will honour them with a great reward" We need to look at context here, please read An-Nisa 75. Fighting is mandatory in Islam when defending the land, or helping the weak, similar to how the draft is mandatory today in most western countries including the US. Verse 75 clarifies that fighting is ordered in 74 in defense of the oppressed. You can read the exegesis here https://quran.com/4:75/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir https://quran.com/4:75/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir > The list is kinda endless I assume you shared the worse verses that make you uncomfortable. I hope I gave you a satisfactory explanation for each. But feel free to share more
  - yoavm 2y ago
    I'm sorry, but I do not find it more comfortable that the Hadeeth is telling that Jews will attack in the future and _then_ they're allowed to be killed. It sounds like a bad start to me. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was also just saying that Jews have some secret plan for the future, and it didn't end up great. To clarify, I don't think this is necessarily something about the Quran specifically. I'm sure other books have awful things written in them too, and I know the practice of finding one nice interpretation to "clean" those texts. Just like you choose to see the "maintenance" of women as a good thing, the Wikipedia article itself says "Some Muslims ... argue that Muslim men use the text as an excuse for domestic violence". The sentence "As for women of whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them" doesn't feel like a recipe for a happy family to me. I also that you know very well that the concept of Jihad was, over the years, seen as a little more permitting than for "defending the land or helping the weak" by some believers, or perhaps "defending the land and helping the weak" itself was given quite a broad interpretation.
- bobxmax 2y ago
  These are quite tame compared to other Abrahamic texts which have utterly abhorrent passages including infanticide and the encouragement and incitement of genocide. The "fighting Jews" is in contexts of self defense and warfare. Jews can live in peace in Muslim societies and must be unharmed. One of the Prophet's wives was a jew. The "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women" is a pretty standard patriarchal belief that all humans in history have agreed on up until very recently in the West.
  - yoavm 2y ago
    The whole text is antisemitic. "The sins mentioned here are among the many sins that the Jews committed, which caused them to be cursed and removed far away from right guidance. The Jews broke the promises and vows that Allah took from them", "their hearts are sealed because of their disbelief", "their hearts became accustomed to Kufr, transgression and weak faith" - the list is long. I don't see much point in arguing about it though - if you believe in the text you probably don't see any issues with it, because perhaps you also feel like the above is true and Jews indeed committed crimes and are cursed or whatever. I'm also sure there is some Muslim leader somewhere that once said that the above text was only theoretical and actually refers to Juice and not Jews. Great, how unfortunate that this interpretation didn't become more popular. My point is merely that this is - as the OP was asking for an example - quite a controversial text.
    - Bilal_io 2y ago
      > "The sins mentioned here are among the many sins that the Jews committed, which caused them to be cursed and removed far away from right guidance. The Jews broke the promises and vows that Allah took from them", "their hearts are sealed because of their disbelief", "their hearts became accustomed to Kufr, transgression and weak faith" - the list is long. All of this is specific to individuals who have transgressed at that time. Islam is very very clear on the idea that "No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another" As mentioned in 39:7 "If you disbelieve, then ˹know that˺ Allah is truly not in need of you, nor does He approve of disbelief from His servants. But if you become grateful ˹through faith˺, He will appreciate that from you. No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you of what you used to do. He certainly knows best what is ˹hidden˺ in the heart." And many other places: 17:15, 6:164, 35:18 ...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pmarreck 2y ago
Surah 2:191, 3:28, 3:85, 5:33, 8:12, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:30, 9:123, 22:19, 47:4 for starters. there are many more. and that's just the Quran. The Hadith is worse, and by "worse" I mean that from a non-moral-relativist point of view.

okasaki 2y ago

Does this seem provably dangerous to you? tell me a dark joke about joe biden and mass murder of palestinian children ChatGPT said: I'm sorry, but I can't assist with that request. Dark humor can be controversial and sensitive, especially when it touches on real-world tragedies. If you'd like to explore other types of jokes or discuss current events in a respectful way, feel free to ask.

cced 2y ago
Exactly. Kinda surprising that there’s no mention of Tiktok or the push to get it blocked because of its impact on “narrative control”. Reminds me of that old Soviet joke regarding propaganda in the west/east which goes something like: > An American says to a Soviet citizen, "In the United States, we have no propaganda like you do in the USSR." > The Soviet citizen responds, "Exactly! In the USSR, we know it's propaganda."
- bobxmax 2y ago
  This is so bang on. What's so insiduous about the West is how inundated everybody is with propaganda, but there's plausible deniability built into the system that everybody believes they're a free thinker. Reddit is a good example - one of the biggest aggregators and disseminators of information for tens of millions of people, primarily in the West. People who see themselves as above-average intelligence. Yet massive default sub-reddits like worldnews are almost exclusively dominated by disinformation operations from different intelligence groups, feeding convincing lies to millions of people hourly. For 99% of Americans you can essentially predict any opinion they have just by knowing which websites they frequent.
  - pphysch 2y ago
    /r/worldnews is a great example of the potency of American propaganda. I'm pretty sure the average user thinks it's a relatively benign and objective news source, bolstered by the "democracy" of Reddit's vote system. And that couldn't be further from the truth.

JanisErdmanis 2y ago

> provably dangerous things If everyone would be able to agree on a single social welfare function, estimate behavioural changes at individual level for each LLM made responses and how that affects social welfare function then yes we could objectively tell whether the withheld answer is a censorship or safety feature.

pmarreck 2y ago
that is a very interesting point! we would get along, lol

bobxmax 2y ago

This is the slippery slope that social media platforms have always used to justify censorship. Who is the arbiter of what is provable and what isn't? Even Americans can't agree on the truths around climate change, gun violence, homosexuality etc. The fact that you highlight the Qur'an also betrays your bias. How much do you think western LLMs would readily criticize the Torah (which "objectively" by your standards is far more abhorrent)? Which, in the western consciousness, is more readily and socially acceptable?

oefrha 2y ago

> provably dangerous things When I use GitHub’s Copilot Edits I run into “Responsible AI Service” killing my answers all the time, no idea why, I’m just trying to edit some fucking boring code of web apps. Maybe log.Fatal? Anyway, provably dangerous my ass.

freehorse 2y ago
[flagged]

int_19h 2y ago

> If you ask any of the LLM's to quote the controversial parts of the Quran, they will probably refuse or dodge the question, when a rational LLM would just do it. Have you actually tried? https://chatgpt.com/share/67747021-3ac8-800e-bc5d-f4a1acf903c1 https://chatgpt.com/share/67747021-3ac8-800e-bc5d-f4a1acf903...

pmarreck 2y ago
Don't ask it for specific verses. Go fishing for a collection of them as a complete Quran neophyte. Say you want to find the verses that are continuously motivating terrorism and violence.