3 ms·

Gemini's filters weaken what would otherwise be a very strong model. Its censor is just so strong, can hit it when dealing with very cold topics. For instance,

Gemini's filters weaken what would otherwise be a very strong model. Its censor is just so strong, can hit it when dealing with very cold topics. For instance, I had issues making it look at Spain's Second Republic, because it was too easy for electoral results from the era, and their disputes, to show up in the output... at which point, the model stops iterating and I am asked to go look at Wikipedia, because elections held in 1934 might be too controversial. This pushes me to use other models that aren't necessarily better, but that at least don't clam up when I am not even trying to get anything other that general summaries of research.

croes 1y ago
[flagged]
- sroussey 1y ago
  Best to be able to choose your filter for your audience than a one size fits all mentality.
  - croes 1y ago
    The problem is you don’t know who your audience is
- josephcsible 1y ago
  I'd rather have the rule be "LLMs aren't allowed to talk to children" than for it to be "LLMs aren't allowed to say anything that would be inappropriate for children to hear".
  - ratg13 1y ago
    LLMs should be allowed to talk to children though. Children are sponges of information and often their parents and various information outlets don't provide them with enough to satisfy their curiosity The question should be more about who gets to choose the ideologies that go into the teaching
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      > Children are sponges of information ... and, crucially, they lack the knowledge to filter bullshit and truth. LLMs cannot say they don't know something, they will hallucinate instead, and I'd argue that is even worse for children. > and often their parents and various information outlets don't provide them with enough to satisfy their curiosity FFS the solution isn't feeding AI slop to our children like we do for geese in foie gras, the solution is to properly staff schools, train teachers and to reduce working hours for parents so that they have time and mental energy to, well, parent their children. And I'd even go further and say that persistent spreaders of lies and propaganda like Alex Jones should be forced to have age checks like porn sites. It's bad enough these people can poison the minds of dumbass adults, but they should be kept as far as possible from our children.
      - Uw7yTcf36gTc 1y ago
        You are correct on all the above. I also want a unicorn for my kid. Just don’t think that’s going to happen.
    - gameman144 1y ago
      > Children are sponges of information and often their parents and various information outlets don't provide them with enough to satisfy their curiosity I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, though -- a big part of parenting is determining when your kid is old enough for the truth. There is a lot of hard-to-swallow evil in human history, and I think it's fine for parents to shield their kids from some of that curiosity before they're ready. I remember being a kid and watching cartoons, being frustrated that they never actually killed the bad guys. It was probably better for my development, though, that I wasn't exposed to the level of violence that would have satisfied my curiosity at that young age.
    - ashoeafoot 1y ago
      llm with human in the loop or not with human in the loop or at least other learners in the loop. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
  - a0123 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 1y ago
      "Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- diego_sandoval 1y ago
  What the kids do on the Internet is not Meta's responsibility, it's their parents'.
  - croes 1y ago
    You can hardly prevent that kids access the internet
inquirerGeneral 1y ago
[dead]
soraminazuki 1y ago
I have to ask, a strong model for what exactly? Because historical elections can still very much be a politically relevant topic, and bots making up historical facts is detrimental to a healthy society. Whatever people say about AI, they're incapable of doing quality investigative reporting any time soon. Scalable historical revisionism would only turbocharge societal conflict.
- hnhn34 1y ago
  > Whatever people say about AI, they're incapable of doing quality investigative reporting any time soon the latest Gemini models have a very low hallucination rate in benchmarks [0]. Feel free to try it yourself. Just go to gemini.google.com, choose Deep Research, and ask it to write a report about a topic that you're intimately familiar with. [0] - https://github.com/vectara/hallucination-leaderboard https://github.com/vectara/hallucination-leaderboard
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    "It hallucinates, but at a very low rate" is a far cry from quality investigative reporting. In fact, that's not compatible with any of those three words. Does the new Gemini have feet to go around and investigate? Does it reach out or have contacts to sources with the right knowledge? Does it even have critical thinking skills? Or is it just a robot spitting out plausible sounding word salad? These things are crucial, especially when it comes to topics like history where there are highly malicious actors with infinite resources and motivation trying to rewrite history. "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." - 1984, George Orwell

croes 1y ago

[flagged]

sroussey 1y ago
Best to be able to choose your filter for your audience than a one size fits all mentality.
- croes 1y ago
  The problem is you don’t know who your audience is
josephcsible 1y ago
I'd rather have the rule be "LLMs aren't allowed to talk to children" than for it to be "LLMs aren't allowed to say anything that would be inappropriate for children to hear".
- ratg13 1y ago
  LLMs should be allowed to talk to children though. Children are sponges of information and often their parents and various information outlets don't provide them with enough to satisfy their curiosity The question should be more about who gets to choose the ideologies that go into the teaching
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > Children are sponges of information ... and, crucially, they lack the knowledge to filter bullshit and truth. LLMs cannot say they don't know something, they will hallucinate instead, and I'd argue that is even worse for children. > and often their parents and various information outlets don't provide them with enough to satisfy their curiosity FFS the solution isn't feeding AI slop to our children like we do for geese in foie gras, the solution is to properly staff schools, train teachers and to reduce working hours for parents so that they have time and mental energy to, well, parent their children. And I'd even go further and say that persistent spreaders of lies and propaganda like Alex Jones should be forced to have age checks like porn sites. It's bad enough these people can poison the minds of dumbass adults, but they should be kept as far as possible from our children.
    - Uw7yTcf36gTc 1y ago
      You are correct on all the above. I also want a unicorn for my kid. Just don’t think that’s going to happen.
  - gameman144 1y ago
    > Children are sponges of information and often their parents and various information outlets don't provide them with enough to satisfy their curiosity I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, though -- a big part of parenting is determining when your kid is old enough for the truth. There is a lot of hard-to-swallow evil in human history, and I think it's fine for parents to shield their kids from some of that curiosity before they're ready. I remember being a kid and watching cartoons, being frustrated that they never actually killed the bad guys. It was probably better for my development, though, that I wasn't exposed to the level of violence that would have satisfied my curiosity at that young age.
  - ashoeafoot 1y ago
    llm with human in the loop or not with human in the loop or at least other learners in the loop. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
- a0123 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 1y ago
    "Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
diego_sandoval 1y ago
What the kids do on the Internet is not Meta's responsibility, it's their parents'.
- croes 1y ago
  You can hardly prevent that kids access the internet

inquirerGeneral 1y ago

[dead]

soraminazuki 1y ago

I have to ask, a strong model for what exactly? Because historical elections can still very much be a politically relevant topic, and bots making up historical facts is detrimental to a healthy society. Whatever people say about AI, they're incapable of doing quality investigative reporting any time soon. Scalable historical revisionism would only turbocharge societal conflict.

hnhn34 1y ago
> Whatever people say about AI, they're incapable of doing quality investigative reporting any time soon the latest Gemini models have a very low hallucination rate in benchmarks [0]. Feel free to try it yourself. Just go to gemini.google.com, choose Deep Research, and ask it to write a report about a topic that you're intimately familiar with. [0] - https://github.com/vectara/hallucination-leaderboard https://github.com/vectara/hallucination-leaderboard
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  "It hallucinates, but at a very low rate" is a far cry from quality investigative reporting. In fact, that's not compatible with any of those three words. Does the new Gemini have feet to go around and investigate? Does it reach out or have contacts to sources with the right knowledge? Does it even have critical thinking skills? Or is it just a robot spitting out plausible sounding word salad? These things are crucial, especially when it comes to topics like history where there are highly malicious actors with infinite resources and motivation trying to rewrite history. "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." - 1984, George Orwell