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

111–120 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#111

Post by myrmidon »

srslack wrote: post #28
mort96 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>People who are afraid of unaligned AI aren't afraid that it will be impolite. People who are not afraid of it being impolite are afraid of science fiction stories about intelligence explosions and singularities. That's not a real thing. Not anymore than turning the solar system into paperclips. The "figurehead", if you want to call him that, is saying that everyone is going to die. That we need to ban GPUs. That onl…

Sorry for derailing this a bit, but I would really like to understand your view: You are not concerned about any "rogue AI" scenario, right?

What makes you so confident in that?

1) Do you think that AI achieving superhuman cognitive abilities is unlikely/really far away?

2) Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied?

3) Do you think we can trivially and indefinitely keep AI systems under control/"aligned"?

Because I view myself ABSOLUTELY not as some kind of AI luddite, but I honestly believe that this is one of the very few credible extinction threats that we face, and I'm counting NEITHER climate change nor nuclear war in that category, for reference.

Re: Uncensored Models

#112

Post by mschuster91 »

gattilorenz wrote: post #99
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.

Mostly these laws are scoped to the country one is living in. The problem is, say I decide to post a meme inciting violence in a different country or limiting a country's decision to join NATO (the quran burning in Sweden for example caused Turkish president Erdogan to block Sweden's NATO bid)... I don't have to face any charges or responsibility, despite potentially affecting the lives of millions of people.

Re: Uncensored Models

#113

Post by Capricorn2481 »

xfitm3 wrote: post #100
dingledork69 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not information, it's a prediction based on informaton

Re: Uncensored Models

#114

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #89
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…

Are you saying that gender is honorific of sorts?

Gender is an individual's perception of (among other things) their sex. Sex is which chromosomes they have.

For most mammals, that's XX for females, XY for males, or any of the (rare) aneuplodic sex chromosomal abnormalities like Kleinfelter syndrome (XXY, e.g. male calico cats), or (rarely viable) chimeric individuals where two embryos fused in the womb. For some mammals (a few bat & rat species), most arachnids, and many insects that's XX for female and just a lone X for male, and any aneuplodic abnormalities of the sex chromosomes that aren't fatal result in an abnormal female. For birds, most reptiles, some insects, some fish, some crustaceans, and some plants, that's ZW for female & ZZ for male, with similar complications to the XY system.

Sex is pretty simple. The vast majority of the time for humans, it's either XX or XY.

Which (primary and secondary) sex organs someone has is more complicated, because that can be altered. But it's still pretty simple, if not always what one would expect from the chromosomal sex.

Gender is complicated, because it's entirely social. It's not entirely clear which animals even have gender.

Sexual attraction is also complicated. The factors which determine it aren't well understood.

Re: Uncensored Models

#115

Post by veridies »

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…

Some hens begin crowing like roosters. It's really annoying for backyard chickens, but I have had it happen a few times. That suggests to me that while chicken behavior varies based on sex, that is a spectrum, not absolute categories.

Re: Uncensored Models

#116

Post by josephcsible »

cubefox wrote: post #21

While I guess an uncensored language model could create something mildly illegal, an uncensored image model could probably generate highly illegal content. There is a trade-off between being uncensored and the (degree of) illegality of the content.

Should pencils and paper be restricted too, since they can also be used to make illegal content?

Re: Uncensored Models

#117

Post by veidr »

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…

I dunno man, I think you are getting tripped up on the evolution of the English language. Yes, your kids are either male or female (mine are all male). Those fundamental physical characteristics can't be changed by language.

But what language means does change. The term "gender" used to mean basically the same thing as "sex", but now it's evolved to mean "the other stuff, aside from biological sex". How they act (for dogs), or that and also how they want to be perceived (for humans, but maybe also dogs; I've known quite many dogs over the years, and that includes a couple of bad-ass bitches that wanted you and the other dogs in the room to know who was boss).

Language evolution is often uncomfortable.

I don't like that "crypto" means the grifter funny money shit now, instead of cryptography like science intended... but it does. My objection doesn't change that; it's a consensus thing. It might be the same for you.

Do they have to bring it up? I mean, kinda debatable, maybe. I did ask about sex, not gender. Strictly speaking, no they didn't have to bring it up. But in that same vein they could have just answered, "Male or female." That would have seemed somehow insufficient. Adding context is pretty core to what these fuzzy-logic language-model generated-text vendors are offering.

But anyway, it's not really debatable that dogs "express gender identity". Because that now means "how they act and how they express themselves". It indeed "doesn't exist" as some kind of empirical boolean value (unlike sex (ignoring for simplicity the highly unusual biological intersex cases I just learned about, haha)).

Because, in the now-prevailing meaning of the term, it is literally an interpretation of their behavior.

It doesn't negate or contradict biological sex, it just now means something separate.

Re: Uncensored Models

#118

Post by noisy_boy »

armchairhacker wrote: post #80
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.

Another one that "watches" a movie would and "rates" it for you - so you can decide if you want to watch it for real or not. Bunch of competing personalized models as services - PMaaS - all fighting to impersonate you better.

Then one of them gets hacked.

Re: Uncensored Models

#119

Post by rtpg »

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…

An obvious issue is AI thrown at a bank loan department reproducing redlining.

Current AI tech allows for laundering this kind of shit that you couldn’t get away with nearly as easily otherwise (obviously still completely possible in existing regulatory alignments, despite what conservative media likes to say. But there’s at least a paper trail!)

This is a real issue possible with existing tech that could potentially be applied tomorrow. It’s not SF, it’s a legitimate concern. But it’s hard and nebulous and the status quo kinda sucks as well. So it’s tough to get into

Re: Uncensored Models

#120

Post by Capricorn2481 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #112
gattilorenz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Mostly these laws are scoped to the country one is living in. The problem is, say I decide to post a meme inciting violence in a different country or limiting a country's decision to join NATO (the quran burning in Sweden for example caused Turkish president Erdogan to block Sweden's NATO bid)... I don't have to face any charges or responsibility, despite potentially affecting the lives of millions of people.

You are right, and this is a tech problem even before LLMs. Facebook has allowed very consequential calls for ethnic cleansing in Ethiopia and hasn't done anything about it. That is the issue with a global tech products.

But there's nothing about LLMs that changes that from a country level prosecution/accountability perspective. You still have to be aware of where you're putting that text into the world. Right now, it's just between you and ChatGPT. People shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they can just plug this shit into their news network and be free of liability

Post reply on HN