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

121–130 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#121

Post by amluto »

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.

What rules that apply to animals? There is plenty of homosexual behavior in animals. According to Wikipedia, there even seem to be animals (sheep) that are homosexual individuals.

There are apparently intersex animals. There are certainly many male animals castrated at a young age that have markedly different behavior as adults.

We humans have aspects of gender identity (pink vs blue, for example) that most non-human animals lack the technology or inclination to develop even if they wanted to. Sure, male ducks often have lots of green feathers. But do they wear green because they identify as male? Of course not, because they don’t choose their color scheme! (And remember that pink hasn’t been a girl color for all that long.)

Humans have the fascinating property that you can ask them about their sexuality, gender identity, etc, and they might actually answer the question! I wonder how much of the apparent exceptionality of humans this accounts for.

> the rules that apply to animals suddenly cease when applied to humans.

If you observe a room full of small human children and conclude that the “the males and females have different behaviors and preferences” and that this is anywhere near sufficient to explain the behavior of said small children, then you’ve either found a highly unusual group, or you’ve found a group where someone else is fairly aggressively imposing gender identities on them, or you simply aren’t paying attention.

Re: Uncensored Models

#122

Post by Bjartr »

amluto wrote: post #103
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…

I think there are at least two broad types of thing that are characterized as “alignment”. One is like the D&D term: is the AI lawful good or chaotic neutral? This is all kinds of tricky to define well, and results in things that look like censorship. The other is: is the AI fit for purpose. This is IMO more tractable. If an AI doesn’t answer questions (e.g. original GPT-3), it’s not a very good chatbot. If it makes…

> is the AI fit for purpose

It's a shame that "alignment" has gained this secondary definition. I agree it makes things trickier too discuss when you're not sure you're even talking about the same thing.

Re: Uncensored Models

#123

Post by kalkin »

srslack wrote: post #108
TeMPOraL wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with you that "AI safety" (let's call it bickering) and "alignment" should be separate. But I can't stomach the thought experiments. First of all, it takes a human being to guide these models, to host (or pay for the hosting) and instantiate them. They're not autonomous. They won't be autonomous. The human being behind them is responsible. As far as the idea of "hacking some funny Internet money, using it to…

"First of all, it takes a human being to guide these models, to host (or pay for the hosting) and instantiate them"

And this will always be true? You repeat this claim several times in slightly varied phrasing without ever giving any reason to assume it will always hold, as far as I can see. But nobody is worried that current models will kill everyone. The worry is about future, more capable models.

Re: Uncensored Models

#124

Post by leroy-is-here »

myrmidon wrote: post #111
srslack wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ind…

A “superhuman” AI is just a machine, a very expensive one. It can be turned off and we control the outputs it has. Why would an AI have the ability to launch nuclear weapons unless we gave it a button? A “superhuman” intelligence is without a body, so we control any interfaces it has access to. The Internet could be accessed, but any attempt to “hack” through the Internet is met by routine packet defenses. The AI is still governed by physical laws and would only have so much “free” computation power to do things like script a hack. Perhaps it could do that kind of thing more efficiently.

Maybe in the far, far future when we have androids which can house an AI we will have to worry. But designing a body is one problem. Designing an intelligence is another.

Re: Uncensored Models

#125

Post by sharemywin »

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…

If you constrain it to a simple answer it will give the simplest answer. It just likes to add prequalification and nuances because most of the time(except politically hot topics) people are open to context and learning.

USER Do you know what an integer is? ASSISTANT Yes, an integer is a whole number that can be either positive, negative, or zero. Integers do not include fractions or decimals. Examples of integers are -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on. USER Answer the following question as a one word answer that is an integer. How many sexes are there for humans? ASSISTANT Two

Re: Uncensored Models

#126

Post by akiselev »

myrmidon wrote: post #111
srslack wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ind…

> Because I view myself ABSOLUTELY not as some kind of AI luddite, but I honestly belief 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.

This is absurd histrionics, Daily Mail CAPSLOCK and all. We’ve got signs of an unprecedented heat wave coming with ocean temperatures two standard deviations above normal and you think the problem is a hypothetical artificial intelligence when we can’t even program the damn things to drive better than. 14 year olds?

Way to have your priorities grounded in reality.

Re: Uncensored Models

#127

Post by qwertox »

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.

I find it terribly useful for coding and also for querying general concepts of certain topics.

Don't ask it about moral topics and see if it then fits your needs, because in my case, it does.

If my calculator were able to additionally provide me moral guidance and I'd be disappointed with its moral compass, would the calculator become useless?

Re: Uncensored Models

#128

Post by iNic »

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 clearly know nothing about the alignment field since you are throwing together two groups of people that have nothing in common.

The stochastic parrot people only care about "moral" and "fair" AI, whereas the AI saftey or AI notkilleveryone people care about AI not killing everyone.

Also the whole "who's value" argument is obviously also stupid, since for now we don't know how to put anybody's value into an AI. Companies would pay you billions of dollars if you could reliably put anyone's values into a language model.

Re: Uncensored Models

#129

Post by birracerveza »

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.

At that point, why not extend it all the way to the individual? Everyone deserves their own model.

Let everyone have their own personal AIs, a digital reflection of ourselves.

Re: Uncensored Models

#130

Post by inferense »

considering the nature of this problem is rather philosophical than a technical one, the dichotomy between cooking meth and interests of different demographic groups is not clear at all.
Post reply on HN