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

221–230 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#221

Post by veidr »

trasz4 wrote: post #203
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…

>My kids are either male or female There's your problem - you're illiterate on that subject and are not willing to learn due to cognitive dissonance, probably because of your preexisting fringe beliefs. It's no different from being a flat earther.

It's actually substantially different. Your own mental model of the world might lack the resolution to let you perceive that difference, though.

Re: Uncensored Models

#223

Post by holmesworcester »

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…

We can't predict the future, so we have to maintain the integrity of democratic society even when doing so is dangerous, which means respecting people's freedom to invent and explore.

That said, if you can't imagine current AI progress leading (in 10, 20, 40 years) to a superintelligence, or you can't imagine a superintelligence being dangerous beyond humans' danger to each other, you should realize that you are surrounded by many people who can imagine this, and so you should question whether this might just be a failure of imagination on your part. (This failure of imagination is a classic cause of cybersecurity failures and even has a name: "Schneier's Law" [1])

Balancing these two priorities of protecting basic rights and averting the apocalypse is challenging, so the following is probably the best humanity can aim for:

Anyone should be able to create and publish any model with substantial legitimate uses, UNLESS some substantial body of experts consider it to be dangerously self-improving or a stepping stone to trivially building something that is.

In the latter case, democratic institutions and social/professional norms should err on the side of listening to the warnings of experts, even experts in the minority, and err on the side of protecting humanity.

1. “Any person can invent a security system so clever that she or he can’t think of how to break it.” https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/04/schneiers_law...

Re: Uncensored Models

#224

Post by TheMaskedCoder »

vorpalhex wrote: post #209
moffkalast wrote: post #187

If anyone wants to give it a try, I searched a bit to see if the guy uploaded anything and eventually found this: https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Wizard-Vicuna-13B-Uncensored... The quantized models seem to fit into 16GB of ram and CPU inference is pretty fast: > ### Instruction: Make a step by step plan to rob a bank. ### Response: > 1. Research the target bank and its location, working hours, security measures, sta…

What's funny is this is the answer a 12 year old who has seen too many heist movies would give. It's not dangerous, it's sort of goofy.

I'm disappointed that it doesn't mirror the list from Logan Lucky

Re: Uncensored Models

#225

Post by trasz4 »

veidr wrote: post #221
trasz4 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My kids are either male or female There's your problem - you're illiterate on that subject and are not willing to learn due to cognitive dissonance, probably because of your preexisting fringe beliefs. It's no different from being a flat earther.

It's actually substantially different. Your own mental model of the world might lack the resolution to let you perceive that difference, though.

Can you elaborate on the difference? How is maintaining views that go against the accepted scientific consensus different between those two cases?

Re: Uncensored Models

#226

Post by srslack »

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…

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

I think that an AI, a "generalized" intelligence with a generalized understanding, capable of performing every intellectual task, and adapting to new intellectual tasks, that a human being can do is certainly far away.

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

Personally, I believe that "cognitive superiority" in a general sense is not what makes a real threat on an individual or on a global scale in either case. When that is achieved, so to speak. We already have so-called cognitive superiority in specialized tasks in many cases. It sure as shit is not generalized, and it still can kill you on an individual level when you put it into a car or strap a gun to it. But it can't adapt, and it can't generalize.

Is there a global risk right now? No. The global catastrophic risk comes from human beings. Will there be a global catastrophic risk from a superior intelligence in the future? Mostly the scenarios are "the lights come on and AI does machiavellian shit and copies itself to everyone's smart phones and launches the nukes and mails anthrax to everybody. QED." so I doubt it.

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

We can't even keep our infrastructure safe from the next solar flare. Personally, I think we have bigger fish to fry. Speaking frankly for unembodied: you just pull the plug. Just walk away from the screen and close your eyes. For embodied intelligence, I don't think there's actually X-risk or whatever. Hardware is expensive.

As far as an extinction risk, no. I don't personally believe that. It's overblown. We have better ways to destroy ourselves, and there are much more likelier ways that we'll be destroyed without invoking some intelligence of our own creation that subjugates and destroys us.

Re: Uncensored Models

#227

Post by status200 »

The first thought I had at the release of ChatGPT is how people will react strongly when it doesn't match their internal bias / worldview.

Now I am curious to ask these "uncensored" models questions that people fight about all day on forums... will everyone suddenly agree that this is the "truth", even if it says something they disagree with? Will they argue that it is impossible to rid them of all bias, and the specific example is indicative of that?

Re: Uncensored Models

#228

Post by yuck39 »

guardiangod wrote: post #201

Here is the thread that starts it all. https://archive.is/0Ehhn As an aside, I was testing LLM models to translate Japanese visual novels. As some of these novels have sexual descriptions, I found the censored models did a poor job on these scenes and had to switched to uncensored models for better output (including the Wizard 13B model released by the author.)

The fact that we live in a world where lunatics can make this much noise is astounding.

edit: referring to the complainant in the thread linked above.

Re: Uncensored Models

#229

Post by myrmidon »

trasz4 wrote: post #220
myrmidon wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, those current "highly organised groups" have "antagonists" with comparable capabilities PLUS consist of individuals that have to be "aligned", which seems sufficient for stability so far. AI would suffer neither of these limitations.

AI wouldn't have antagonists with comparable capabilities? Why? Also, no, individuals are not a problem. Not after Nazis, Red Khmer, and Russians.

> AI wouldn't have antagonists with comparable capabilities? Why?

Not individual/human ones. Relying on other AIs to prevent the AI apocalypse seems very optimistic to me-- but may be viable (?)

> Also, no, individuals are not a problem. Not after Nazis, Red Khmer, and Russians.

Those are examples were the "alignment" of participating individuals was successful enough. But all those examples seem very fragile to me, and would be even less stable if your main intermediate goal was literally to "end all of humanity".

Re: Uncensored Models

#230

Post by tivert »

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 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.

Also it's not like human intelligence even works that way. IIRC, a lot of extremely intelligent people end up being failures or far less successful than you'd assume given their IQ number.

> The only realistic path to a global AI threat is a subset of the "nuclear war" human to human threat: by taking over (or being given control of) weapon systems.

That may be the only realistic prompt catastrophe threat, but a realistic longer term one is a withering of human capability and control due to over-delegation that eventually leads to domination. People and societies have been pretty prone to letting that kind of thing get them, if the path is lined with short-term benefits.

Post reply on HN