3 ms·

> why do we want to then censor LLMs differently? Because of the obvious PR implications of having a program one's company wrote spewing controversial takes. T

> why do we want to then censor LLMs differently? Because of the obvious PR implications of having a program one's company wrote spewing controversial takes. That's what it boils down to - and it's entirely reasonable. Personally, I wish these things could have a configurable censorship setting. Everyone has different things that get under their skin, after all (and this would satisfy both the pro-censor and pro-uncensored groups). It's a good argument for self hosting, too, because those can be filtered to your own sensitivities. That would help with cases where the censorship is just dead wrong. A friend was working with one of the coding ones in VS Code, and expressed his frustration that as soon as the codebase included the standard acronym for "Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital" (HOMO) it just refused any further completion. We both guessed the censor was catching it as a false positive for the slur.

thatguy0900 2y ago
It wouldn't satisfy both groups, the people who want the censorship want it censored for everyone
kees99 2y ago
> obvious PR implications That's the right answer. And it's not like this is a potential risk that is only being theorized about. Microsoft already has a very hands-on experience with disasters of this exact nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(chatbot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(chatbot)
VonGallifrey 2y ago
> We both guessed the censor was catching it as a false positive for the slur. There is a word for this. It is called the Scunthorpe problem. Named after the incident in which the residents of the Town Scunthorpe could not register for an AOL account because AOL had an obscenity filter that did not allow the Town name. It has been a problem since 1996 and still causes problems.