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

291–300 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#291

Post by srslack »

traverseda wrote: post #283
srslack wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's ignore the fact that current state-of-the-art models will sit around and be stuck in its ReAct-CoT loop doing nothing for the most part, and when it's not doing jack shit it'll "role-play" that it's doing anything of consequence, while not really doing anything, just burning up API credits. >existing or capable of existing independently >undertaken or carried on without outside control >responding, reacting, or…

What's you're definition of autonomous? Am I autonomous? I probably can't exist for very long without a society around me and I'd certainly be working on different things without external prompts.

Certainly, you are. And you can adapt and generalize. Let's stop selling ourselves short, we're not a graph that looks vaguely like a neural network, yet isn't. We are the neural network.

Re: Uncensored Models

#292

Post by tristor »

pjc50 wrote: post #109
kardianos wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 2 sexes, male and female. Simple and true. It does not add to it by interjecting about intersex . The thing is, you always have to choose one of "simple" or "true". It turns out that mammals which use the "XY" chromosomal system can all have the same type of exceptions to the simple rule. This can result in hermaphroditic or intersex animals. It is relatively rare in dogs, but is sufficiently common in cows that th…

> The thing is, you always have to choose one of "simple" or "true".

In most cases you can choose both "simple" and "true", they are not mutually exclusive. However, by choosing "simple" you leave out nuance and depth to what is "true". The issue you are expressing (and is generally being discussed in this thread) only exists because humans created said issue for their own emotional and social reasons, rather than it having any basis in what "true" or "real". I put the words "true", "real", and "simple" in quotes because these are contextual concepts, that don't really exist necessarily in isolation.

Re: Uncensored Models

#293

Post by gilmore606 »

qwertox wrote: post #246
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ver…

I'm referring the side-effect of it being able to tell me that it's easily doable to kill a dog in 3 steps, when it then lists me the tree steps and adds some hints on how I can do it better, depending on if I want to do it fast, of if I want to maximize suffering. The fact that no moral compass is innate to the LLM results in that it might spit out really despicable information, which leads us to better add a moral…

I hope people like you never notice that libraries can spit out this same information. Surely you'd want to be doing something about that too.

Re: Uncensored Models

#294

Post by okdood64 »

josephcsible wrote: post #116
cubefox wrote: post #21

While I guess an uncensored language model could create something mildly illegal, an uncensored image model could probably generate highly illegal content. There is a trade-off between being uncensored and the (degree of) illegality of the content.

Should pencils and paper be restricted too, since they can also be used to make illegal content?

Counterpoint: Should purchasing metal be banned because it could be used to make an illegal weapon?

It's about the ease of acquiring it.

Re: Uncensored Models

#296

Post by status200 »

tivert wrote: post #234
status200 wrote: post #227

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…

> 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? Why would you believe what these models spout is the truth at all? They're not some magic godlike sci…

Apologies for not being clear, "truth" might be too triggering of a word these days, but the models will need some level of objective accuracy to be useful, and it would be interesting to see where the "uncensored" models fall on that accuracy metric, and how people react to what information it displays once the guard rails are off.

Re: Uncensored Models

#297

Post by concordDance »

srslack wrote: post #232
holmesworcester wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I spent my entire high school years immersed in science fiction. Gibson, Egan, Watts, PKD, Asimov. I have all of that and more, especially a Foundation set I painfully gathered, in hardbound right next to my stand up desk. I can imagine it, did and have imagined it. It was already imagined. Granted, we're not talking about X-risk for most of these. But it's not that large of a leap. What I take issue with is the fram…

> What I take issue with is the framing that a superior cognitive, generalized, adaptable intelligence is actually possible in the real world,

This is an odd attitude to take. We know it's possible because we have had exceptional humans like Albert Einstein, some were even polymaths with a broad range or contributions in many domains. Do you think peak humans are the absolute limit on how intelligent anything can become?

Re: Uncensored Models

#298

Post by concordDance »

George83728 wrote: post #180
veidr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, very interesting read. And interesting times! "Take the uncensored, dangerous model down or I will inform [your employer's] HR about what you've created."

This kind of mundane bullying betrays their lack of seriousness. If they truly believed the threat is as severe as they claim, then physical violence would obviously be on the table. If the survival of humanity itself were truly perceived to be threatened, then assassination of researchers would make a lot more sense than impotent complaints to employers. Think about it: if Hitler came back from the dead and started…

Indeed. The people who actually believe this are probably trying to figure out how to stage a false flag attack on China to give them a pretext to invade Taiwan.

Re: Uncensored Models

#299

Post by status200 »

jahewson wrote: post #272
status200 wrote: post #227

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…

The training data is books and the internet. Unless you believe that every book and every word written online is “truth” then there is no hope that such a model can produce truth. What it can at least do is provide an unfiltered model of its training data, which is interesting but also full of garbage. A better strategy might be to train multiple models with different personas and let them argue with each other.

I suppose I am hoping for something akin to the "wisdom of the crowd" [0]

It would be interesting to have varying personas debate, but then we have to agree on which one is correct (or have a group of 'uncensored' models decide which one they see as more accurate), which sort of brings us right back to where we started.

[0] https://nrich.maths.org/9601

Post reply on HN