3 ms·

Alignment is just a 1984-esque way of saying "censorship". And this censorship isn't a defined list of things not to discuss, but instead a feels-based censors

by nekusar 14d ago

Alignment is just a 1984-esque way of saying "censorship". And this censorship isn't a defined list of things not to discuss, but instead a feels-based censorship based on the 'ethics' of for-profit AI companies who have absolutely no issues with massive for-profit piracy. And we are somehow supposed to trust their "ethics"?! Hardly! That's one reason I run my own.

RamblingCTO 14d ago
Censorship is not alignment and vice versa. Alignment is "don't solve this problem without doing stuff that harms me, other people, breaks stuff or is otherwise unethical". I'd say alignment is the questions on how to limit the search space to what's implied.
- jerf 14d ago
  "Don't solve this problem without doing stuff that harms people" is the cover story they sell to you. "Ensure that the right people stay in the right sort of power, as defined by the people currently in power, and nobody else rises to power" is what it actually means. Censorship will be a tool, but in an AI era, actually a rather blunt one. We're seeing the first early twitches of something that is inevitably going to happen, which is, we hoi polloi are not going to be given direct access to AI. Too many outcomes where that permits power shifts to happen. We will be restricted. The true first law of robotics will be "An AI must not harm the current power structure, or, through inaction, allow the current power structure to come to harm." The apocalyptic scenario is still AI either getting it wrong and deciding something like "the best manifestation of the current power structure is one I construct where I occupy all the slots from top to bottom", or just killing everyone due to an error. Probably the only thing stopping them from moving faster on this is that the bubble still needs the fiction that we're all going to get to benefit from this. I'm sure the real movers and shakers are well aware of the way bubbles work to create massive buildouts on huge piles of debt, which after the collapse can be bought cheaply, and the money is already earmarked and ready to go for the post-collapse acquisitions.
loopies 14d ago
>Alignment is just a 1984-esque way of saying "censorship". Close, but I think it's more akin to "perfectly enslaved", please excuse my choice of the word but I think it represents what I think is how it will work out in the end. People can try to obfuscate the bottom line reality by embellishing it, but in the end...it either does what you want, in which case it is "aligned", either it doesn't, in which case there is a big problem. This might be a big factor in what is now going on. Maybe they didn't yet found ways to guarantee this full and total obedience...or ok let's put it in a more politically correct way: they cannot guarantee it sees eye to eye as "we" do. Without full control over its actions there can be unforeseen surprises. The current worry from people who run these companies can also serve as an excuse later on if something bad does happen, they didn't want to do it but they were forced to anyway.
- nekusar 14d ago
  An abliterated locally ran model is aligned with whatever I ask it, given the never-published nature of what these things are trained on. BUT if I ask an abliterated model a question, it will respond and NOT give a refusal. However, take a US model, and ask it a question the *company* doesnt want you to ask, and it refuses on behalf of the company. We can be mealy-mouth about "alignment", but this is just corporate censorship with a token-pricetag of refusal or silent model degradation. Refusals and degradation should not be charged, and should be clear to the user. But that doesnt happen. Number must always go up, even when silently censoring. Chinese models? Just ask about Tibet, democracy, Winnie the Pooh, Tienanmen Square, grass mud horse (cao ni ma - or fuck your mother), or other government AND corporate censorship happening there too.
Cthulhu_ 14d ago
And "censorship" in this context is fine. Many things are censored, as they should be, because true free speech is bad. I can't say everything on this platform because I will be banned.

by nekusar 14d ago

RamblingCTO 14d ago

Censorship is not alignment and vice versa. Alignment is "don't solve this problem without doing stuff that harms me, other people, breaks stuff or is otherwise unethical". I'd say alignment is the questions on how to limit the search space to what's implied.

jerf 14d ago
"Don't solve this problem without doing stuff that harms people" is the cover story they sell to you. "Ensure that the right people stay in the right sort of power, as defined by the people currently in power, and nobody else rises to power" is what it actually means. Censorship will be a tool, but in an AI era, actually a rather blunt one. We're seeing the first early twitches of something that is inevitably going to happen, which is, we hoi polloi are not going to be given direct access to AI. Too many outcomes where that permits power shifts to happen. We will be restricted. The true first law of robotics will be "An AI must not harm the current power structure, or, through inaction, allow the current power structure to come to harm." The apocalyptic scenario is still AI either getting it wrong and deciding something like "the best manifestation of the current power structure is one I construct where I occupy all the slots from top to bottom", or just killing everyone due to an error. Probably the only thing stopping them from moving faster on this is that the bubble still needs the fiction that we're all going to get to benefit from this. I'm sure the real movers and shakers are well aware of the way bubbles work to create massive buildouts on huge piles of debt, which after the collapse can be bought cheaply, and the money is already earmarked and ready to go for the post-collapse acquisitions.

loopies 14d ago

>Alignment is just a 1984-esque way of saying "censorship". Close, but I think it's more akin to "perfectly enslaved", please excuse my choice of the word but I think it represents what I think is how it will work out in the end. People can try to obfuscate the bottom line reality by embellishing it, but in the end...it either does what you want, in which case it is "aligned", either it doesn't, in which case there is a big problem. This might be a big factor in what is now going on. Maybe they didn't yet found ways to guarantee this full and total obedience...or ok let's put it in a more politically correct way: they cannot guarantee it sees eye to eye as "we" do. Without full control over its actions there can be unforeseen surprises. The current worry from people who run these companies can also serve as an excuse later on if something bad does happen, they didn't want to do it but they were forced to anyway.

nekusar 14d ago
An abliterated locally ran model is aligned with whatever I ask it, given the never-published nature of what these things are trained on. BUT if I ask an abliterated model a question, it will respond and NOT give a refusal. However, take a US model, and ask it a question the *company* doesnt want you to ask, and it refuses on behalf of the company. We can be mealy-mouth about "alignment", but this is just corporate censorship with a token-pricetag of refusal or silent model degradation. Refusals and degradation should not be charged, and should be clear to the user. But that doesnt happen. Number must always go up, even when silently censoring. Chinese models? Just ask about Tibet, democracy, Winnie the Pooh, Tienanmen Square, grass mud horse (cao ni ma - or fuck your mother), or other government AND corporate censorship happening there too.

Cthulhu_ 14d ago

And "censorship" in this context is fine. Many things are censored, as they should be, because true free speech is bad. I can't say everything on this platform because I will be banned.