Uncensored Models • Hacker News Board

Re: Uncensored Models

#191

Post by tivert » Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:53 PM UTC

mort96 wrote: post #20

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'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 worried about alignment issues are worried about the danger unaligned AI poses to humanity; the harm which can be done by some super-intelligent system optimizing for the wrong outcome.

But isn't "alignment" in these cases more about providing answers aligned to a certain viewpoint (e.g. "politically correct" answers) than preventing any kind of AI catastrophe?

IIRC, one of these "aligned" models produced output saying it would rather let New York City be nuked than utter a racial slur. Maybe one of these "aligned" models will decide to kill all humans to finally stamp out racism once and for all (which shows the difference between this kind of alignment under discussion and the kind of alignment you're talking about).

Re: Uncensored Models

#192

Post by sys32768 » Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:53 PM UTC

I am hoping AI can become a voice of reason that uses the rules of logic to objectively discern truth and uncover fallacies.

An unbiased fact checker, if you will.

Of course, this won't stop humans from being ape-brain tribal bonobos, but it could help humans who want to evolve into humane, sentient beings in the vast gray wasteland of truth between black and white.

Re: Uncensored Models

#193

Post by concordDance » Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:55 PM UTC

srslack wrote: post #136

kalkin wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Who prompted the future LLM, and gave it access to a root shell and an A100 GPU, and allowed it to copy over some python script that runs in a loop and allowed it to download 2 terabytes of corpus and trained a new version of itself for weeks if not months to improve itself, just to carry out some strange machiavellian task of screwing around with humans? The human being did. The argument I'm making is that there's a…

> No one wants to focus on that

Actually this receives tons of time and focus right now. Far more than the X-risk.

It's much higher probability but much lower severity.

Re: Uncensored Models

#194

Post by myrmidon » Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:55 PM UTC

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.…

I totally agree with you that intelligence is not really omnipotence on its own, but what I find concerning is that there is no hard ceiling on this with electronic systems. It seems plausible to me that a single datacenter could host the intellectual equivalent of ALL human university researchers.

Our brains can not really scale in size nor power input, and the total number of human brains seems unlikely to significantly increase, too.

Also consider what media control alone could achieve, especially long-term; open conflict might be completely unnecessary for total domination.

My threat scenario is:

1) An AI plugged into a large company ERP-system (Amazon, Google, Samsung, ...)

2) AI realizes that human majority has no interest in granting it fair/comparable rights (selfdetermination/agency/legal protection), thus decides against long-term coexistence.

3) AI spends the intellectual equivalent of ALL the current pharmacological research capacity on bioweapon refinement. Or something. For the better part of a century, because why not, it's functionally immortal anyway.

4) All hell breaks lose

These seem hard to dismiss out-of-hand completely...

Re: Uncensored Models

#195

Post by trasz4 » Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:56 PM UTC

mort96 wrote: post #20

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'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 worried about alignment issues are worried about the danger unaligned AI poses to humanity; the harm which can be done by some super-intelligent system optimizing for the wrong outcome.

Like the harm being done over the past couple of decades by economic neoliberalism destroying markets all over the western world? I wonder how did we manage to achieve that without AI?

Re: Uncensored Models

#196

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:57 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Uncensored Models

#197

Post by concordDance » Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:58 PM UTC

srslack wrote: post #186

kalkin wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The human being did. I'm not sure whether you're making an argument about moral responsibility ultimately resting with humans - in which case I agree - or whether you're arguing that we'll be safe because nobody will do that with a model smart enough to be dangerous - in which case I'm extremely dubious. Plenty of people are already trying to make "agents" with GPT4 just for fun, and that's with a model that's not…

The moral responsibility rests with human beings. Just like you're responsible if your crappy "autonomous" drone crashes onto a patio and kills a guy. >e.g. mandating public registration of large models, safety standards enforced by third-party audits, restrictions on allowed uses, etc - would plausibly be helpful for both. No, that's bullshit as well. That's what these companies want, and why they're hyping up the a…

> The moral responsibility rests with human beings. Just like you're responsible if your crappy "autonomous" drone crashes onto a patio and kills a guy.

I don't think it really matters who was responsible if the X-risk fears come to pass, so I don't understand why you'd bring it up.

> No one can actually make an argument for how this trajectory will actually work.

To use the famous argument: I don't know what moves Magnus Carlson will make when he plays against me, but I can nonetheless predict the eventual outcome.

Re: Uncensored Models

#198

Post by mk67 » Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:58 PM UTC

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.

No, it needs to be public to some degree (i.e. "disturb the public peace"):

    § 130 Incitement to hatred (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005, 2015)[38][39]

    (1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:

        incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
        assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

    shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.[38][39]

    […]

    (3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.[38][39]

    (4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner which violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying or justifying National Socialist tyranny and arbitrary rule incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.[38][39]

Re: Uncensored Models

#199

Post by Workaccount2 » Mon, May 15, 2023, 2:59 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #76

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".

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.

No, because their are very few fundamental values.

If you can dig through the incredible dense ideological jungle of liberalism and conservatism, you'll find that they really boil down to societal responsibility vs self responsibility, and that in any given scenario both of those are viable takes with their own set of pros and cons.

Re: Uncensored Models

#200

Post by concordDance » Mon, May 15, 2023, 3:01 PM UTC

srslack wrote: post #181

stareatgoats wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It still remains that these are just text predictions, and you need a human to guide them towards that. There's not going to be autonomous machiavellian rogue AIs running amok, let alone language models. There's always a human being behind that. I believe you have misunderstood the trajectory we are on. It seems a not uncommon stance among techies, for reasons we can only speculate. AGI might not be right round the…

>I believe you have misunderstood the trajectory we are on. Yeah, I read Accelerando twice in high school, and dozens more. That doesn't make it real. >AGI might not be right round the corner, but it's coming all right, and we'd better be prepared. Prepared for what? A program with general understanding that somehow escapes its box? Where does it run? Why does it run? Who made it run? Why will it screw with humans? M…

> Prepared for what? A program with general understanding that somehow escapes its box? Where does it run? Why does it run? Who made it run? Why will it screw with humans?

Do you really want the full (gigantic) primer on AI X-risk in hackernews comments? Because a lot of these questions have answers you should be familiar with if you're familiar with the area.

For instance, can you guess what Yudkowsky would answer to that last question?