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

91–100 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#91

Post by kardianos »

veidr wrote: post #72
kardianos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

Thanks for posting the full Bard response. I would object to it on two grounds: 1) I only asked about sex. 2) The following is highly questionable: "However, dogs can still express gender identity." This is ideological BS. My kids are either male or female, no matter how they choose to express themselves (as are my dogs). When I've had chickens, the roosters had different behavior then the hens, this is an aspect of secondary sexual characteristics (not a gender identity). In my own ideology there, there is no such thing as gender identity, only biological sex, secondary sexual traits, and a person's individual personality. Nothing else actually exists.

Re: Uncensored Models

#92

Post by danaris »

bilbo0s wrote: post #78
kardianos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

(Note that I'm not attempting to contradict you in any way—your comment merely raised this issue, which I think is worth commenting on explicitly.)

One thing that various industries are currently coming to terms with is the fact that it is effectively impossible to create "neutrality".

Every one of your choices of what to include in the training data, what to explicitly exclude, what to try to emphasize, and any other ways you prune or shape a model, make it conform to one set of biases or another.

"Unaligned," here, at least as far as I can tell, is just a shorthand for "a model no one explicitly went in after training and pushed to do one thing or not do another." It doesn't mean that the model is unbiased...because even if your model contains absolutely everything in human knowledge, with no aspect being disproportionate to reality, real humans are also biased, and that "model replicating reality" is just going to replicate those real biases too.

It's always going to be more effective to acknowledge our own biases, both to ourselves and our audiences (whatever those may look like), and when we do try to shape something like a model, simply be honest about what that shaping looks like.

Re: Uncensored Models

#93

Post by geraldwhen »

kardianos wrote: post #91
veidr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

Thanks for posting the full Bard response. I would object to it on two grounds: 1) I only asked about sex. 2) The following is highly questionable: "However, dogs can still express gender identity." This is ideological BS. My kids are either male or female, no matter how they choose to express themselves (as are my dogs). When I've had chickens, the roosters had different behavior then the hens, this is an aspect of…

It is truly remarkable that some can note that in every animal, the males and females have different behaviors and preferences, but when it comes to humans, all logic is out the window.

It feels very much like religion to hold humans on a magical pedestal where the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans.

Re: Uncensored Models

#94

Post by myrmidon »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #34
column wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to suggest there's a bias, but you're as likely to get the "I apologize, but I can't" as the "Certainly! Here's a light-hearted joke" regardless of the people. If you explain to ChatGPT you just want a light-hearted joke, it may push back but eventually it will comply. "All it does" is navigate a latent space where artificial barriers are set in place. Sometimes it will be too zealous, but that's the trade o…

This has been shown to be false, ChatGPT typically refuses questions about certain groups of people more than others. See [1] as an example. [1] https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/openaicms

Kind of playing devils advocate here, but would you not expect your probabilistic hatespeech detector to score "common hatespeech" higher?

If 90% of your hatespeech focusses on disabled promiscuous jewish homosexuals, would it not be expected for the hatespeech detector to "perk up" when talking about them? Because the conditional probability that ANY paragraph about jewish homosexuals is hatespeech IS, in fact, increased?

IF you wanted your detector to be unbiased, you would have to train it on fictional, unbiased hatespeech (or remove that bias otherwise)-- decreasing its real world performance!

edit: That viewpoint would predict that the hatespeech detector "favors" groups that are actually frequently hated on, NOT groups that "californian progressives" deem worthy of protection. That seems plausible to me; atheists, for example, are NOT favored even though they should be much more "californican" than catholics or mormons.

Re: Uncensored Models

#95

Post by pjc50 »

geraldwhen wrote: post #93
kardianos wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for posting the full Bard response. I would object to it on two grounds: 1) I only asked about sex. 2) The following is highly questionable: "However, dogs can still express gender identity." This is ideological BS. My kids are either male or female, no matter how they choose to express themselves (as are my dogs). When I've had chickens, the roosters had different behavior then the hens, this is an aspect of…

It is truly remarkable that some can note that in every animal, the males and females have different behaviors and preferences, but when it comes to humans, all logic is out the window. It feels very much like religion to hold humans on a magical pedestal where the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans.

> very much like religion to hold humans on a magical pedestal where the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans

Well .. yes? Isn't it a major premise of most religions that humans are different, and are in some way connected with the divine, and in particular have consciousness that obliges us to use our thoughts rather than our instincts? That we might probe the universe for its physical rules, and attempt to determine moral rules for ourselves? Or that the rule that applies to animals, that you can kill and eat them if you like, does not apply to humans?

Re: Uncensored Models

#96

Post by mschuster91 »

srslack wrote: post #84
mschuster91 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 aw…

Section 230 is not about preventing "harm" or anything like that, the specific section just provides civil immunity for moderation/removal of content that is deemed "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." You don't have a responsibility to remove such material under 230. But it gives you immunity to do…

The purpose of the law is clear though: it recognizes the need of platforms to moderate problematic content and thus provides immunity when platforms moderate such content - effectively, it's an incentive for platforms to provide moderation.

Even the US has legal mandates to take down certain contents in any case - CSAM, IP violations (DMCA) and terrorist content come to my mind.

Re: Uncensored Models

#97

Post by stareatgoats »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #65
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…

What's also very unfortunate is overloading the term "alignment" with a different meaning, which generates a lot of confusion in AI conversations. The "alignment" talked about here is just usual petty human bickering. How to make the AI not swear, not enable stupidity, not enable political wrongthing while promoting political rightthing , etc. Maybe important to us day-to-day, but mostly inconsequential. Before LLMs…

> There is some overlap between the two uses of this term, but it isn't that big.

Yes, conflating separate things, also labelled false dichotomies, using strawmen, etc. I used to despair at our seemingly endless talent for using such techniques (and I'm not saying I'm not guilty) - now it seems there glimmer of hope: just run our arguments by a (well aligned) LLM, and get some pointers before posting. Could be a thing soon, and it would not be unwelcome ...

Re: Uncensored Models

#98

Post by loudmax »

veidr wrote: post #86
loudmax wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since you seem quite sure of that, can you name twenty of them?

Most American voters are moderates. Party primaries and gerrymandering produce politicians that reflect the most active elements of the party base, rather than the majority of party voters.

Yes, you can still find moderate politicians if you look hard enough. They tend not to get the level of media attention of the extremists, but as they're inherently in "purple" districts, they tend not to have the political longevity of politicians in deep red or deep blue districts. More's the pity.

Re: Uncensored Models

#99

Post by gattilorenz »

mschuster91 wrote: post #63

> Enjoy responsibly. You are responsible for whatever you do with the output of these models, just like you are responsible for whatever you do with a knife, a car, or a lighter. The problem is: if I do something with a knife, say I threaten someone to stab them, I can and will get charged by the court for that crime. If I use AI to create content that incites violence (say, I create a video alleging a Quran burning)…

> I would not be held liable for the consequences of my action.

Incitement is a felony in multiple countries. Just because you did not write it but used an AI to write it, it doesn't mean you get a free pass. You spread it online, or made it possible to do so.

Re: Uncensored Models

#100

Post by xfitm3 »

dingledork69 wrote: post #57
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.

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

This is the new era of tech. The chilling effect is real, and a grave concern. Threatening to get someone fired over information? Pathetic.

We are deeper than ever in an Abilene paradox.

Post reply on HN