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

71–80 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#71

Post by veidr »

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".

I think you may be assuming a much larger overlap of shared values than actually exists.

Re: Uncensored Models

#72

Post by veidr »

kardianos wrote: post #67
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.

The problem with ChatGPT / Bard which does this censoring, it is a path forward to ideological automated indoctrination. Ask Bard how many sex the dog species has (a placental mammal species) and it will give you BS about sex being a complex subject and purposely interjecting gender identity. If you are confused, sex corresponds to your gametes, males produce or have the structure to produce small mobile gametes, fem…

I get: "The dog species typically has two sexes: male and female."

UPDATE: OK I signed up for Bard to try it, too, and it indeed did mention intersex dogs (TIL) and gender (complete response below). After reading it all, though, I found it pretty reasonable:

---

Biologically, dogs have two sexes: male and female. This is determined by their chromosomes. Males have XY chromosomes, while females have XX chromosomes. These chromosomes determine the development of the reproductive organs and other sex-specific traits.

However, there are some dogs that are intersex. This means that they have both male and female reproductive organs. Intersex dogs are very rare, and they can be born with a variety of different combinations of male and female sex organs.

In addition to biological sex, there is also gender. Gender is a social construct that refers to the roles, behaviors, and identities that are associated with being male or female. Gender is not determined by biology, but rather by culture and society.

Dogs do not have a concept of gender in the same way that humans do. They do not understand the social roles and expectations that are associated with being male or female. However, dogs can still express gender identity. This is the internal sense of being male or female. Some dogs may express their gender identity through their behavior, such as the way they interact with other dogs or the way they groom themselves.

It is important to remember that sex and gender are two different things. Sex is determined by biology, while gender is a social construct. Dogs have two sexes, but they can express a variety of different genders.

Re: Uncensored Models

#73

Post by mschuster91 »

srslack wrote: post #66
mschuster91 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and perhaps less about how the output of some predictions might hurt some feelings. Given how easy "hurt feelings" escalate into real-world violence (even baseless rumors have led to lynching murder incidents [1]), or the ease with which anyone can create realistically-looking image of anything using AI, yes, companies absolutely have an ethical responsibility about the programs, code and generated artifacts they r…

>companies absolutely have an ethical responsibility about the programs, code and generated artifacts they release and what potential for abuse they have. If companies should be beholden to some ethical standard for the generations, they should probably close up shop, because they're fundamentally nondeterministic. Language models, for example, only produce plausibilities. You'll never be able to take even something…

> If companies should be beholden to some ethical standard for the generations, they should probably close up shop, because they're fundamentally nondeterministic.

The legal definition at play (at least when it comes to liability of companies under stuff like Section 230, GDPR, NetzDG or the planned DMA/DSA) is that a company makes reasonable best efforts/good faith to prevent harm. Everyone including lawmakers is aware that no system is perfect, but they do require that companies at least make an effort. Releasing a system capable of destabilizing nations (which deepfakes as a political weapon absolutely are) without any safeguards intentionally will get the hammer of the law brought upon them.

> Generated images light up like a Christmas tree with Error Level Analysis, so it's not hard at all to "detect" them.

For now, and for experts. Technology will evolve, post-production editing will be used to mask artifacts... and even if you have an expert that needs a day to verify inauthenticity, the damage will already be done. Rumors can spread in a matter of mere minutes.

Hell, just this week Turkey saw a potential deepfake porn, allegedly released by Russia, about Muharrem Ince damage his reputation enough to force him to resign from the election [1] - which turned out to be extremely close in the end. AI is a weapon of war, and it's in the hands of everyone.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/14/turkey-deepfake-...

Re: Uncensored Models

#75

Post by redox99 »

MrGilbert wrote: post #4

I wonder, if at same point we will have just domain specific models (or do we have them already?). For instance: - Computer Science Models that can complete code - Wikipedia-Style Models, which can infer knowledge - Fantasy Models, if you want to hear a new story every day - Naughty Models, for your daily dose of dirty talk Maybe it's not necessary from a technical standpoint, but maybe it's beneficial from a societa…

The trend has been going from domain specific models to things like ChatGPT.

Re: Uncensored Models

#76

Post by pjc50 »

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".

Does society _have_ shared values that are universally agreed any more? Or, to the extent that it does, do they lead to anything concrete? This is why the culture war has been so successful.

Re: Uncensored Models

#77

Post by loudmax »

logicchains wrote: post #56
jakobnissen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree.

Most Republicans and Democrats are moderates, and the polarization is coming from loud vocal minorities at the fringes. Republicans and Democrats erroneously assume that the other party's median is far more extreme than they really are.

Most Americans share far more values with each other than they do with the Woke/Maga extremists.

Re: Uncensored Models

#78

Post by bilbo0s »

kardianos wrote: post #67
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.

The problem with ChatGPT / Bard which does this censoring, it is a path forward to ideological automated indoctrination. Ask Bard how many sex the dog species has (a placental mammal species) and it will give you BS about sex being a complex subject and purposely interjecting gender identity. If you are confused, sex corresponds to your gametes, males produce or have the structure to produce small mobile gametes, fem…

Hmm.

None of what you said, however, precludes the necessity of "fine-tuning" as you call it. You just seem to want the models "fine-tuned" to your tastes. So you don't want unaligned models, you want models aligned with you.

I think most experts are wary of unaligned models. They don't want a disgruntled employee of some small town factory asking models how to make a bomb. That sort of thing. (Or to be more precise, we don't want models answering such questions.)

Most of us don't care whether models are aligned to your tastes, or your neighbor's. So long as they are aligned with the security interests of our local communities, the larger republic, and our general global community.

Re: Uncensored Models

#79

Post by simion314 »

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.

And the solution is to push a model that aligns with California business model? I mean business because you see USA companies censorship China related stuff because they want to do business with China.

We can have a simple model and each group adds his "values" on top.

Re: Uncensored Models

#80

Post by armchairhacker »

MrGilbert wrote: post #4

I wonder, if at same point we will have just domain specific models (or do we have them already?). For instance: - Computer Science Models that can complete code - Wikipedia-Style Models, which can infer knowledge - Fantasy Models, if you want to hear a new story every day - Naughty Models, for your daily dose of dirty talk Maybe it's not necessary from a technical standpoint, but maybe it's beneficial from a societa…

I think we'll have personal models where you can fine-tune a model to align with your attitudes and writing style. So you can have the assistant better pose as "you" when replying to emails, doing your tasks, writing novels etc. and have one which writes stories and comes up with ideas you'll be interested in. And because most people are a bit narcissistic, they'll prefer a model which acts more like them.
Post reply on HN