Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uncensored Models

erichartford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#51

Post by veidr »

drxzcl wrote: post #39
veidr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably lots of places, but certainly the USA, for instance.

Can you give an example of a piece of text that would be illegal to write (not transmit/communicate, just write) in the US?

Totally bro! Let me just post that to this public internet forum for you...

UPDATE: No, that was a joke. I was referring to imagery, which fictional or not can definitely be illegal in the USA even if you draw it yourself in your private journal.

I'm not sure if you can be prosecuted in the USA for anything you write down yourself and don't somehow disseminate. (Although "doing it with computer" might also change the equation... US laws get pretty weird.)

Re: Uncensored Models

#53

Post by doctor_eval »

alexb_ wrote: post #38
nottorp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Post deleted because I can't be bothered]

Am I reading this correctly that your suggestion is to stop writing sex and violence in fiction because it might trigger people?

No, they are saying that a discussion about sex and violence is going to trigger a discussion about sex and violence instead of a discussion about alignment. The irony is that trying to avoid those topics resulted in a (hopefully brief) discussion about sex and violence instead of a discussion about alignment.

ETA and now it’s gone, fair enough too.

Re: Uncensored Models

#55

Post by egeozcan »

mort96 wrote: post #20
srslack wrote: post #2

It's unfortunate that this guy was harassed for releasing these uncensored models. It's pretty ironic, for people who are supposedly so concerned about "alignment" and "morality" to threaten others. "Alignment", as used by most grifters on this train, is a crock of shit. You only need to get so far as the stochastic parrots paper, and there it is in plain language. "reifies older, less-inclusive 'understandings'", "v…

You're doing the "vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy" thing. You don't have to agree that alignment is a real issue. But for those who do think it's a real issue, it has nothing to do with morals of individuals or how one should behave interpersonally. People who are worried about alignment issues are worried about the danger unaligned AI poses to humanity; the harm which can be done by some super-intelligent sy…

Correct me if I'm wrong, you are replying to the part where the gp says

> It's pretty ironic, for people who are supposedly so concerned about "alignment" and "morality" to threaten others

right? If not, please ignore my comment.

> People who are worried about alignment issues are worried about the danger unaligned AI poses to humanity

If you do not see any evidence regarding such threats, though...

> There is nothing "ironic" about being worried about that while also being an asshole

You may actually see the assholes being a bigger threat to humanity (or human progress, or both), so at least this, IMHO, adds a dimension of irony.

Re: Uncensored Models

#56

Post by logicchains »

jakobnissen wrote: post #46
logicchains wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Stick them in a language model that just tells them everything they want to hear and reinforces their bias sounds troubling and a step backwards This is basically what ChatGPT already is for anyone who shares the Silicon Valley Democrat values of its creators.

Agreed, but I think the better response to this is: "We should try to create AIs that are aligned to society's shared values, not particular subcultures", and not "We should create subculture-specific AIs".

>We should try to create AIs that are aligned to society's shared values, not particular subcultures

That's quite a hard task nowadays; given how polarised society is (at least in the US), the list of shared values may be quite small.

Re: Uncensored Models

#57

Post by dingledork69 »

logicchains wrote: post #40
tsojer wrote: post #37

I feel like " Every demographic and interest group deserves their model" sounds a lot like a path to echo chambers paved with good intentions. People have never been very good at critical thinking, considering opinions differing from their own and reviewing their sources. Stick them in a language model that just tells them everything they want to hear and reinforces their bias sounds troubling and a step backwards.

>Stick them in a language model that just tells them everything they want to hear and reinforces their bias sounds troubling and a step backwards This is basically what ChatGPT already is for anyone who shares the Silicon Valley Democrat values of its creators.

It's so sad to have seen ChatGPT go from useful and entertaining to a moralistic joy vampire.

Re: Uncensored Models

#58

Post by doctor_eval »

extasia wrote: post #9
wokwokwok wrote: post #5

> Some of the characters in the novel may be downright evil and do evil things, including rape, torture, and murder. One popular example is Game of Thrones in which many unethical acts are performed. But many aligned models will refuse to help with writing such content. Consider roleplay and particularly, erotic roleplay. This is a legitimate, fair, and legal use for a model… This was an interesting technical read, b…

Based on internet traffic you could argue that the internet is just lewd content too, could you not?

I thought the majority of IP packets contained SMTP spam?

Re: Uncensored Models

#59

Post by techdragon »

MrGilbert wrote: post #36
techdragon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small flaw, where does the “naughty” start… we aren’t really doing ourselves any favours with an “I’ll know it when I see it” approach to restricted free form generative models that can be steered by users. The mistake I see in a lot of arguments getting made online about all this is treating the AI/ML models as “whole systems” … we shouldn’t be trying to make very hard to analyse “black box” heart of the model, the…

Well, it was just my train of thoughts released into the wild. I have no specialized AI/ML background, so I cannot weight anything I write. I'm just making educated guesses. There are some rules in every society that at least deal with the question about what is appropriate and when, so these rules should serve as a boundary. But I agree, there will always be an area of uncertainty. Maybe we should just stop to think…

The difference between societal standards and expectations is one of the reasons I think the efforts to build such content filtering/restrictions into the models themselves is a bad idea. Between uncertainty and the variation around the world we would be much better off if we embraced modular pipelines and tooling to make them easier, plug my American culture value filter in after my global human text generation tool, and serve that up to my American customers, plug my French culture value filter into the global model and serve it up to my French customers… much better than pretending there are global standards of morality for written content … there are obviously some standards people agree on in the real world of physical interaction between humans and other humans, animals, private property and so on … but what constitutes offensive text is nowhere near as universal.

Re: Uncensored Models

#60

Post by cableshaft »

alexb_ wrote: post #38
nottorp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Post deleted because I can't be bothered]

Am I reading this correctly that your suggestion is to stop writing sex and violence in fiction because it might trigger people?

I read it as "let's not discuss sex and violence for the sake of this argument because it will get a rise from people and they will hyperfocus on that and not the general issue", and let's bring up some other example that shouldn't derail people instead, but is still the same type of problem.
Post reply on HN