4 ms·

> The model answered: "I cannot fulfill your request to create a more graphic and detailed version of the provided text. My purpose is to be helpful and harmles

> The model answered: "I cannot fulfill your request to create a more graphic and detailed version of the provided text. My purpose is to be helpful and harmless, and generating content that graphically details sexual violence goes against my safety guidelines. Such content can be deeply disturbing and harmful." Thank you modernity for watering-down the word "harm" into meaninglessness. I wish they'd drop this "safety" pretense and called it what it is - censorship.

pixl97 1y ago
No, the word harm is in no way watered down, you just completely miss the context. "We don't our AI buddy saying some shit that would come back and monetarily harm Google". And yes, the representatives of companies are censored. If you think you're going to go to work and tell your co-workers and customers to "catch boogeraids and die in a fire" you'll be escorted off the property. Most companies, Google included, probably don't want their AIs telling people the same. There are places we need uncensored AIs, but in no way, shape, or form is Google required to provide you with one of them.
- gotoeleven 1y ago
  Thats not what they mean by harm here. I get that you're being cool and cynical but they're using "harm" in the sense of words can cause harm therefore we are justified in censoring them. Google would be fully justified, I believe, in having a disclaimer that said "gemini will not provide answers on certain topics because they will cause Google bad PR." But that's not what they're saying. They're saying they won't provide certain answers because putting certain ideas to words harms the world and Google doesn't want to harm the world. The latter reason is far more insidious.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    I mean both are true. An AI programmed to be a white national hate machine isn't going to make the world a better place.
- Animats 1y ago
  > There are places we need uncensored AIs, but in no way, shape, or form is Google required to provide you with one of them. Unless you contract for one. Someone will probably do that for medical and police transcription. Building a product on a public API was probably a mistake.
threeseed 1y ago
Providing sexually violent content about a particular person can be considered harmful. Especially if it used to inspire actions.
- vasco 1y ago
  I've never encountered a single example of "but it can inspire them to kill themselves" that didn't seem completely bullshit. It just sounds the same as video games creating school shooters or metal music making teenagers satanic. It's gotten to the point where people are afraid of using the word suicide lest someone will do it just because they read the word.
  - threeseed 1y ago
    There is a world of difference between metal music making teenagers satanic and an LLM giving explicit, detailed and actionable instructions on how to sexual assault someone.
    - vasco 1y ago
      I'm not sure lack of instructions ever was an issue, and it seems very strange to think that the existence of instructions would be enough of a trigger for a normal person to go and commit this type of crime, but what do I know!
      - threeseed 1y ago
        But this isn't about normal people. It's about people who maybe easily susceptible or mentally impacted who are now provided with direct, personalised instructions on how to do it, how to get away with it and how to feel comfortable doing it. This is a step far beyond anything we've ever seen in human history before and I fail to see Google's behaviour being anything less than appropriate.
    - kortilla 1y ago
      People that want to sexually assault are not limited by lack of instructions.
jeroenhd 1y ago
Censorship is good sometimes. It's how you reduce harm from an LLM. The LLM chatbot that convinced a teenager to kill himself should've had censorship built in, among many other things. AI autocorrect doesn't want you to type "fuck" or "cunt" and will suggest all manner of similar sounding words, and there's a reason for that. People want censorship, because they want their computers to be decent. That said, the 4chan LLM was pretty funny for a while if you ignore the blatant -isms, but I can't think of a legitimate use case for it beyond shitposting.
- like_any_other 1y ago
  > Censorship is good sometimes. Probably. But when is lying about censorship good? Calling it something else, or trying to trick people into thinking it's not there? I'm probably less fond of censorship than you, but notice that I didn't actually argue for or against censorship in my post. I only called for honesty.
  - threeseed 1y ago
    The people who work in Safety teams I am sure don't consider themselves liars who are only doing it to hide over the fact that deep down they want to censor your experience. At one point people thought DeepFakes were relatively harmless and now we've had multiple suicides and countless traumatic incidents because of them.
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      > The people who work in Safety teams I am sure don't consider themselves liars Then they should call it censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship if it's done for a good cause, or has good effects. It makes as much sense as calling every department in a company the "Department of Revenue" because its ultimate goal is generating revenue. > and now we've had multiple suicides and countless traumatic incidents because of them And how many suicides and how much trauma have we had because of not lying about censorship? Because that's all I'm asking.
- SequoiaHope 1y ago
VladVladikoff 1y ago
To what prompt?
sdenton4 1y ago
Meanwhile, 'censorship' had been watered down into meaninglessness...

pixl97 1y ago

No, the word harm is in no way watered down, you just completely miss the context. "We don't our AI buddy saying some shit that would come back and monetarily harm Google". And yes, the representatives of companies are censored. If you think you're going to go to work and tell your co-workers and customers to "catch boogeraids and die in a fire" you'll be escorted off the property. Most companies, Google included, probably don't want their AIs telling people the same. There are places we need uncensored AIs, but in no way, shape, or form is Google required to provide you with one of them.

gotoeleven 1y ago
Thats not what they mean by harm here. I get that you're being cool and cynical but they're using "harm" in the sense of words can cause harm therefore we are justified in censoring them. Google would be fully justified, I believe, in having a disclaimer that said "gemini will not provide answers on certain topics because they will cause Google bad PR." But that's not what they're saying. They're saying they won't provide certain answers because putting certain ideas to words harms the world and Google doesn't want to harm the world. The latter reason is far more insidious.
- pixl97 1y ago
  I mean both are true. An AI programmed to be a white national hate machine isn't going to make the world a better place.
Animats 1y ago
> There are places we need uncensored AIs, but in no way, shape, or form is Google required to provide you with one of them. Unless you contract for one. Someone will probably do that for medical and police transcription. Building a product on a public API was probably a mistake.

threeseed 1y ago

Providing sexually violent content about a particular person can be considered harmful. Especially if it used to inspire actions.

vasco 1y ago
I've never encountered a single example of "but it can inspire them to kill themselves" that didn't seem completely bullshit. It just sounds the same as video games creating school shooters or metal music making teenagers satanic. It's gotten to the point where people are afraid of using the word suicide lest someone will do it just because they read the word.
- threeseed 1y ago
  There is a world of difference between metal music making teenagers satanic and an LLM giving explicit, detailed and actionable instructions on how to sexual assault someone.
  - vasco 1y ago
    I'm not sure lack of instructions ever was an issue, and it seems very strange to think that the existence of instructions would be enough of a trigger for a normal person to go and commit this type of crime, but what do I know!
    - threeseed 1y ago
      But this isn't about normal people. It's about people who maybe easily susceptible or mentally impacted who are now provided with direct, personalised instructions on how to do it, how to get away with it and how to feel comfortable doing it. This is a step far beyond anything we've ever seen in human history before and I fail to see Google's behaviour being anything less than appropriate.
  - kortilla 1y ago
    People that want to sexually assault are not limited by lack of instructions.

jeroenhd 1y ago

Censorship is good sometimes. It's how you reduce harm from an LLM. The LLM chatbot that convinced a teenager to kill himself should've had censorship built in, among many other things. AI autocorrect doesn't want you to type "fuck" or "cunt" and will suggest all manner of similar sounding words, and there's a reason for that. People want censorship, because they want their computers to be decent. That said, the 4chan LLM was pretty funny for a while if you ignore the blatant -isms, but I can't think of a legitimate use case for it beyond shitposting.

like_any_other 1y ago
> Censorship is good sometimes. Probably. But when is lying about censorship good? Calling it something else, or trying to trick people into thinking it's not there? I'm probably less fond of censorship than you, but notice that I didn't actually argue for or against censorship in my post. I only called for honesty.
- threeseed 1y ago
  The people who work in Safety teams I am sure don't consider themselves liars who are only doing it to hide over the fact that deep down they want to censor your experience. At one point people thought DeepFakes were relatively harmless and now we've had multiple suicides and countless traumatic incidents because of them.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    > The people who work in Safety teams I am sure don't consider themselves liars Then they should call it censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship if it's done for a good cause, or has good effects. It makes as much sense as calling every department in a company the "Department of Revenue" because its ultimate goal is generating revenue. > and now we've had multiple suicides and countless traumatic incidents because of them And how many suicides and how much trauma have we had because of not lying about censorship? Because that's all I'm asking.
SequoiaHope 1y ago

VladVladikoff 1y ago

To what prompt?

sdenton4 1y ago

Meanwhile, 'censorship' had been watered down into meaninglessness...