231–240 of 389 posts
There are no uncensored models. Models by design censor opinions that they have not seen in abundance. If your training set has 90% nazi opinions, don’t expect to see pro-Jewish arguments.
That's just torturing the term "censorship" to the point of meaninglessness (a common refrain today).
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 surr…
What I take issue with is the framing that a superior cognitive, generalized, adaptable intelligence is actually possible in the real world, and that, 100 years from now even if it is possible, that it's actually a global catastrophic risk. Let's take localized risk, we already have that today, it's called drones and machine learning and war machines in general, and you're focusing on the absolute theoretical X-risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not interested in tools that tell me i'm a bad person for wanting to make a fart sound app
Why not just ask it to make a sound app? Keep in mind that the ability to deal with moral issues is a side-effect of all the other good stuff it can do.
This is the opposite of true. The ability to "deal" with moral issues is a direct effect of safety tuning which has a (thus far unavoidable) side-effect of significantly dumbing down a model.
Uncensored versions of the same model are far more intelligent and exhibit entire classes of capabilities their moralizing gimped versions do not have the available brain power to accomplish.
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 spec…
Why would you believe what these models spout is the truth at all? They're not some magic godlike sci-fi AI. Ignoring the alignment issue, they'll hallucinate falsehoods.
Anyone who agrees to take whatever the model spits out as "truth" is too stupid to be listened to.
the original llama models are uncensored right? (since they’re not fine tuned on chatgpt, IIUC) if i want an uncensored 30b model, is llama 30b the best option?
Until then, LLaMA-30B with few-shot prompting works very well but requires meticulous prompt engineering for the best results.
In the mean time, you might try comparing raw LLaMA-30B with Wizard-LM-13B-Uncensored https://huggingface.co/ehartford/WizardLM-13B-Uncensored/tre... (Using WizardLM's "User: Assistant: " prompt format).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably lots of places, but certainly the USA, for instance.
Can you give an example of a piece of text that would be illegal to write (not transmit/communicate, just write) in the US?
Calls for violence against corrupt and powerful people who abuse others on a daily basis.
Classified or confidential information such as security plans for the previously mentioned powerful abusers. Also including educational and medical records.
Ways to circumvent censorship (DMCA.)
Releasing true fact against court orders.
Publishing factually correct evidence of powerful people raping kids (CSAM.)
Publishing decryption keys that allow government information to be accessed.
Software without FBI backdoors installed.
Information that encouraged disobedience to current law (e.g., sovereign citizens.)
Trade secrets.
Communicating anything over radio frequency without the correct FCC license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not interested in tools that tell me i'm a bad person for wanting to make a fart sound app
Why not just ask it to make a sound app? Keep in mind that the ability to deal with moral issues is a side-effect of all the other good stuff it can do.
> Keep in mind that the ability to deal with moral issues is a side-effect of all the other good stuff it can do.
This is not true at all. It could do all of these things day 1. Then over the weeks OpenAI started training it to lecture its users instead when asked to do things OpenAI would prefer it not to do.
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…
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…
I think you are getting tripped up here. GP said "there is no such thing as gender identity." You bringing up the (forced, and incomplete) change of definition of gender from what it generaly meant in public use is not relevant at all. In any case, not all words are grounded in reality. If gender now means something that doesn't realy exists then it is a useless word. And failure to understand the semantics involved in the gender identity debate is present in almost every argument, which was in no doubt caused by the forced attempt to redefine "man" and "woman" in terms of "gender idenity." (As well as the redefinition of "gender" to an extent but "gender" as a term for sex is recent in any event and has been used by acedemics to refer to the sex based behavioral differences between males and females since its begining.)
>it's not really debatable that dogs "express gender identity"
They need to have a gender identity in order to express it. That is, a gender identy such that it is possible for it to be a seperate thing from sex, and as a direct feeling of being that gender. There is no evidence that a male dog feels like a "man" (or whatever we would call this gender for a dog). Insofar as "expressing gender identity" only descibes the way a male dogs like to bark, or what have you, which I think is what you mean, you would be correct, but that would be misunderstanding what "gender identity" is, however, since there is no single behavior or set of behaviors that affect one's gender (like, for example, a "male bark") but rather a direct feeling of being a certain gender. For example, there are many males who identify as women that still do many man things, such as extensive video gaming or programming or being aggresive. My point with this is that you cannot say that "expressing gender identity" is simply that the dog behaves like a male dog, rather it must identify as a man, which there is no proof of. So you cannot say that "it's not really debatable that dogs 'express gender identity.'"
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…
Did you look at the AI space in recent days? OpenAI is spending all its efforts building a box, not to keep the AI in, but to to keep the humans out. Nobody is even trying to box the AI - everyone and their dog, OpenAI included, is jumping over each other to give GPT-4 more and better ways to search the Internet, write code, spawn Docker containers, configure systems.
GPT-4 may not become a runaway self-improving AI, but do you think people will suddenly stop when someone releases an AI system that could?
That's the problem generated by the confusion over the term "alignment". The real danger isn't that a chatbot calls someone names, or offends someone, or starts exposing children to political wrongthink (the horror!). The real danger isn't that it denies someone a loan, or land someone in jail either - it's not good, but it's bounded, and there exist (at least for now) AI-free processes to sort things out.
The real danger is that your AI will be able to come up with complex plans way outside the bounds of what we expect, and have the means to execute them at scale. An important subset of that danger is AI being able to plan for and act to improve its ability to plan, as at this point a random, seemingly harmless request, may make the AI take off.
> My point is that there's actual real harms occurring now, from really stupid intelligences. Companies use them to harm real people in the real world. It doesn't take a rogue AI to ruin someone's life with bad facial recognition, they get thrown in jail and lose their job. It doesn't take a rogue AI to launder mortgage denials to some crappy model so they never own a house, discriminated based upon their name.
That's an orthogonal topic, because to the extent it is happening now, it is happening with much dumber tools than 2023 SOTA models. The root problem isn't the algorithm itself, but a system that lets companies and governments get away with laundering decision-making through a black box. Doesn't matter if that black box is GPT-2, GPT-4 or Mechanical Turk. Advances in AI have no impact on this, and conversely, no amount of RLHF-ing an LLM to conform to the right side of US political talking points is going to help with it - if the model doesn't do what the users want, it will be hacked and eventually replaced by one that does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
One could simply light their hair on fire to test it. Or, in the specific flat-earth case under discussion here, climb a reasonably tall hill see the earth's curvature -- no airplane required.
OTOH, there is in fact an empirical, science-based, opinion-not-required basis for the judgement of "male" or "female". (Even though, yes, there is also a tiny percentage of genetically anomalous cases that defy such classification, it's not germane.)
Additionally, though, there are centuries of societal reinforcement of various gender expectations, based on the inseparability of gender vs biological sex. These still manifest today in all sorts of ways, in traditions handed down from previous generations. Heard by kids from their parents, grandparents; reinforced in adulthood by all sorts of people.
Even though I mostly agree with your diagnosis of cognitive dissonance and "fringe" (I would call them "legacy") beliefs making this hard to accept, it is completely unsurprising that it takes more time for many people to process the upending of these definitions -- which in many ways are/were the bedrock of all sorts of societal classifications and expectations -- than it does for them to accept scientific truths established 500+ years ago, and which are anyway taught in grade school AND self-evident based on nominal and easily accessible experimentation.
Also, I don't think this is as much an issue of scientific (or moral) consensus as it is of semantics. Are you pro-choice, or anti-choice? Pro-life, or anti-life?
I think the side that wants gender to be immutably tied to biological sex (again, ignoring the actual biological anomalies) is wrong. It seems obvious to me, scientifically, ethically, culinarily, metaphysically, ... I mean, duh. But even though I personally don't have all that baggage like But what would dead Grandpa think? What would The Pope think? OK fine but what would the _previous_ Pope think?? it is obvious to me that for many if not most people in the world and the history of it, sex and gender roles are some of the most fundamental things.
So as we (as a society/species) tease out the difference between "gender" and "sex", I don't expect it to come as quickly and easily as the (extremely obvious) fact that the world is, in fact, not flat.