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

161–170 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#161

Post by ndriscoll »

rtpg wrote: post #119
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…

My experience working for a technology provider for banks is that banks aren't going to be using uncensored models. Auditing, record keeping, explainability, carefully selected/thoroughly reviewed wording etc. are par for the course, and in fact that's where there's money to be made. Individuals don't care about these sorts of features, so the FOSS model ecosystem is unlikely to put much if any effort into them. B2B use-cases are going to want that, so it's something you can build without worrying as much about it being completely commoditized.

Re: Uncensored Models

#162

Post by [deleted] »

pjc50 wrote: post #135
myrmidon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Do you believe that cognitive superiority is not a threat in general, or specifically when not embodied? I think this is the easiest one to knock down. It's very, very attractive to intelligent people who define themselves as intelligent to believe that intelligence is a superpower, and that if you get more of it you eventually turn into Professor Xavier and gain the power to reshape the world with your mind alone.…

[deleted]

Re: Uncensored Models

#163

Post by leroy-is-here »

iainmerrick wrote: post #141
leroy-is-here wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Who's "we"?

Humanity.

Re: Uncensored Models

#164

Post by srslack »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #148
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…

The writers of the stochastic parrots paper do not seem to be concerned about unaligned “AI” (text generators) posing a threat to humanity in the way that the doomsayers are. It’s in the title: “stochastic parrot” is a rebuke of those calling LLMs AGI.

Yes, that's correct. It is a slight rebuke, a bit tongue in cheek, but that paper is also old. I grouped them because the groups are, from my perspective, hard to separate. But there are arguably two camps, "AI safety" and "alignment." Perhaps they should work on that, too, form some camps and argue their cases with something defined instead of masquerading under alignment and AI safety depending on the day. But I could also be totally wrong. Until then, I don't believe either are really operating in reality.

Re: Uncensored Models

#165

Post by veidr »

loudmax wrote: post #137
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that even moderates do not have an easily shared set of values. Which is why you can't name them

Here are two: * Elaine Luria * Barbara Comstock Both are from Virginia, and both were voted out of their politically moderate districts. This is the tragedy of being a centrist. Most Republicans aren't deeply racist and most Democrats aren't deeply socialist. Americans largely want a functional representative democracy, with minimal restrictions on free markets and free speech and some measure of opportunity for all.…

We meant name shared values, not politicians.

Free speech? Free markets? Those are good examples of values, if a little vague.

But in reality, even with broad definitions of them, I doubt you could get a significantly different percentage to agree on those things than the idiotic bathroom debate.

Does free speech include aggressive panhandling in the road? Does include shouting epithets and racist vitriol at a woman trying to enter a Planned Parenthood clinic?

Do free markets imply that my mining operation can dump the waste products of my bitcoin mine in the creek behind your house?

FWIW I do think you are right that the US political system has over decades so entrenched the two parties that it makes it impossible to see even the scant common ground that would exist otherwise.

But I don't think there's a huge amount of that common ground.

Re: Uncensored Models

#166

Post by leroy-is-here »

pixl97 wrote: post #153
leroy-is-here wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Supercomputers used to be giant machines we had in giant warehouses... Now the phone in your pocket has the computing power of the 1980s walking around with you. Assuming your super intelligence will always be huge is... well not a great assumption. Also superintelligence doesn't need a body itself. It just needs yours. Putin for example has commanded hundreds of thousands of dumbasses to go get themselves killed in…

My point is that a superintelligence will require specialized equipment. I specifically mentioned it because there is a thought that a superintelligence can just replicate itself onto your phone, as you mentioned.

But this replication must follow the physical laws we have. It must also follow the laws we attempt to enforce in our networks.

But you are correct, if a superintelligence were to somehow convince a human to rid itself of agency, sure.

Re: Uncensored Models

#167

Post by zelphirkalt »

iNic wrote: post #128
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. C…

AI killing people is not fair. So I think you can see one of the two groups as a subgroup of the other.

Who's values discussions also don't seem stupid, as it is better to have a regulation for that, before some Google, MS or Apple does find out how to put in their values and only their values. Better come prepared than to again sleep through the advent of it happening and then again running behind.

Re: Uncensored Models

#168

Post by mindvirus »

sharemywin wrote: post #138
mindvirus wrote: post #101

I think that AI alignment has come to mean a whole lot of things to different people, and it's all under the same umbrella. * Aligning with the user's intent, especially in the face of ambiguity * Aligning with American left-wing/Christian sensibilities * Aligning with safety/laws (don't tell people how to commit a crime, don't accidentally poison them when they ask for a recipe) * Aligning with a company's public im…

I think the researchers that coined the term mean don't accidentally or on purpose kill people.

Right, and I think that's mostly the first point. When the user says "make paperclips efficiently", they (hopefully!) don't mean "step 1: destroy humanity so I can't be turned off".

Re: Uncensored Models

#169

Post by George83728 »

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…

> intelligence explosions [...] That's not a real thing.

Isn't it too early to say? These systems haven't had much time to iterate on themselves yet. The beginning of an exponential curve can look very tame.

That said, I'm not terribly concerned about it. After all, the infrastructure is fragile, literally just unplug the computer if it scares you. If things started to get really spooky, banning GPUs and air-striking fabs would be a real option. I think we can probably control this technology, and kill it if we can't. No cause for alarm, at least yet.

Re: Uncensored Models

#170

Post by Bran_son »

egeozcan wrote: post #62
zirgs wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holocaust denial in Germany.

Really asking: If I deny it in my personal notes and they are discovered in an irrelevant search, would I be in trouble? That'd be horrible lawmaking.

In Ireland, perhaps soon: Irish Citizens Could Soon Be Jailed for ‘Possessing Material Likely to Incite Violence or Hatred’ - https://www.foxnews.com/media/irish-citizens-jailed-possessi...

If you don't trust Fox enough, their article does link to the text of the bill, directly by the Irish government: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/

I'd link to a more trustworthy source, like the New York Times, but they are curiously silent on this bill.

Post reply on HN