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

301–310 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#301

Post by _0ffh »

enragedcacti wrote: post #287
_0ffh wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are humans a bipedal species? Just asking, because some people are born with a different number of legs.

Informally speaking? yeah sure. Discussing the relative benefits of natural forms of locomotion? absolutely. Designing the entrance of a building? I should consider that not everyone is bipedal.

I would submit that the question if humans as a species are bipedal is not concerned with the question if any individual specimen happens to have two legs.

(This is not meant to imply that no consideration should be given to the exceptions, which quite reasonably it clearly is.)

Re: Uncensored Models

#302

Post by BizarroLand »

srslack wrote: post #280
myrmidon wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that an AI, a "generalized" intelligence with a generalized understanding [...] is certainly far away. I think this is where we disagree most; GPT-3 and ChatGPT have convinced me that the main difference between human and artificial cognitive capabilities are quantitative now, and unlikely to ever change in our favor... I do agree with you that it is very difficult to predict when this will switch, and how.…

Have you used it outside of the training set? And have you actually used it for generalized tasks? Let's be kind to the LLM and define generalized to mean "do anything if it can be hammered into a textual interface." It fails at pretty much everything that's not on the internet. It produces plausible language and code. It's the future of natural language agents, that's for sure, even though it has no business being t…

I don't think it's there or even necessarily close to being GAI.

Within our own human brains, we have many sections dedicated to different tasks and processes that all must work together with years and decades of real world interaction to produce what we consider to be a generally intelligent human being, and even in the case of a certain percentage of us humans, even a small amount of damage to a single part of the brain can cause us to become functionally subhuman in our intelligence, barely able to move or eat on our own.

A human that has been lobotomized can still sometimes speak full sentences after all.

The current models seem to be able to imagine an image or video and show that imagination to us, and they can parrot words to us with a large vocabulary and with many references, but I find myself feeling like these are similar to the sections of our brains that can compute words and imagine pictures. Doesn't quite equal a human yet.

These systems need "statefulness", short and long-term memory that can be referenced by multiple discreet interconnected AI systems to take a worthwhile step towards GAI.

These systems need an overseer AI that manages and shepherds the LLAMAs and CHATGPTs and StableDiffusions to all work together towards some goal, one that can manage statefulness and manage a limited pool of computational resources (because any GAI would automatically assume that the entire world would provide it with every available resource, because why wouldn't you, right?)

Until there is an AI system that has multiple AI systems under its subconscious control, to the point where it can surprise itself with the products it produces, has a memory bank that can be referred back to repeatedly by all of those processes, and that can accept that even if its reasoning is perfect it has been born into an imperfect world that is run by imperfect creatures and so it cannot have or do everything that it might could do even under the best of circumstances, we will not have a GAI.

Re: Uncensored Models

#303

Post by srslack »

concordDance wrote: post #297
srslack wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

So, my take is "according to our current understanding" and "artificial". Was a bit distracted. Now, theoretically, is it possible that an alien probe beaconed this solar system 3 billion years ago to a much more advanced civilization and next year they'll arrive and subjugate us and destroy us for that sweet, sweet real estate that's sulfur-poor (as it turns out, their biology is not amenable to it).

Now, is that probable?

No, I don't think humans are the limit. We're apes banging rocks together. Now whether those rocks will be better than us, generally intelligent and (this is important) adaptable is what I doubt.

Re: Uncensored Models

#304

Post by enragedcacti »

_0ffh wrote: post #301
enragedcacti wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Informally speaking? yeah sure. Discussing the relative benefits of natural forms of locomotion? absolutely. Designing the entrance of a building? I should consider that not everyone is bipedal.

I would submit that the question if humans as a species are bipedal is not concerned with the question if any individual specimen happens to have two legs. (This is not meant to imply that no consideration should be given to the exceptions, which quite reasonably it clearly is.)

I agree which is why I phrased my answer the way I did (apologies that I wasn't very clear about that), but I don't think the claim is really analogous to "2 sexes, male and female. Simple and true." (not that you claimed that, just what someone above us said). The equivalent claim would be something like "humans are a sexually dimorphic species" which I think is of course true.

All to say, I don't really care much about these claims in isolation, I care when someone says e.g. "there are two sexes, so we shouldn't let trans people transition". Those conversations are a context where edge cases, caveats, and complexities all play a huge role.

Re: Uncensored Models

#305

Post by pixl97 »

leroy-is-here wrote: post #166
pixl97 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

>if a superintelligence were to somehow convince a human

Hey bro... do you want some...MONEY!

It doesn't take much.

Re: Uncensored Models

#306

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

skyyler wrote: post #290
Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't refering to casual games. I've played thousands of hours of cs and almost all the girls I've seen were with thier boyfriends and were always bottom frag with few hours on their account. The competitve nature of cs makes it a male dominated game. I see women playing candy crush/ animal crossing all the time but these games are not competitive. >what makes programming a man thing? Characteristic Share of respo…

I wasn't referring to casual games either. I'm sure my friend Melanie has more hours in the disgaea series than you do in your little shooter games. My wife's sister makes a pretty penny buying and selling items in some MMO. She doesn't interact with the community on voice chat though, for reasons you make very clear in this interaction. Your conceptions of gendered behaviour are built upon your personal definitions…

>my friend Melanie

>My wife's sister

n=2.

>A total of 395 junior high school students were recruited for evaluation of their experiences playing online games.

>[...]

>This study found that subjects who had previously played online games were predominantly male. Gender differences were also found in the severity of online gaming addiction and motives for playing.[0]

From another study:

>A total of 25,573 students (49.8 % boys and 50.2 % girls) across junior and senior high schools participated in the study.

[...]

>Table 2 lists students’ most frequent online activities. The percentage of frequent online gamers was higher for boys than girls at both school levels, z=13.63, p[0]https://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Abstract/2005/04000/Gender_Di...

[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25079945/

Re: Uncensored Models

#307

Post by commandlinefan »

earthboundkid wrote: post #256
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 "worried about alignment" may as well worry about space aliens eating us all for breakfast. Worrying about a super-AI that does not exist and never will because it is physically and logically impossible is dumb. There are tons of real problems with AI. Worry about those, not what if God is real but He wants to make us into a very large paperclip.

> Worrying about a super-AI that does not exist

But it makes a great trojan horse if you actually have a hidden agenda you want to push.

Re: Uncensored Models

#308

Post by commandlinefan »

mschuster91 wrote: post #50
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…

> and perhaps less about how the output of some predictions might hurt some feelings. Given how easy "hurt feelings" escalate into real-world violence (even baseless rumors have led to lynching murder incidents [1]), or the ease with which anyone can create realistically-looking image of anything using AI, yes, companies absolutely have an ethical responsibility about the programs, code and generated artifacts they r…

> Given how easy "hurt feelings" escalate into real-world violence

Well, not that I'm at all convinced, but that's more an argument for extreme soviet-style censorship rather than a minimalist "make sure AI has a political slant".

Re: Uncensored Models

#309

Post by myrmidon »

srslack wrote: post #280
myrmidon wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think that an AI, a "generalized" intelligence with a generalized understanding [...] is certainly far away. I think this is where we disagree most; GPT-3 and ChatGPT have convinced me that the main difference between human and artificial cognitive capabilities are quantitative now, and unlikely to ever change in our favor... I do agree with you that it is very difficult to predict when this will switch, and how.…

Have you used it outside of the training set? And have you actually used it for generalized tasks? Let's be kind to the LLM and define generalized to mean "do anything if it can be hammered into a textual interface." It fails at pretty much everything that's not on the internet. It produces plausible language and code. It's the future of natural language agents, that's for sure, even though it has no business being t…

> Have you used it outside of the training set? And have you actually used it for generalized tasks? Let's be kind to the LLM and define generalized to mean "do anything if it can be hammered into a textual interface." It fails at pretty much everything that's not on the internet.

I've used it, yes, and I've seen it fail and hallucinate on me; but that does not invalidate its capabilities in my eyes. The thing is, you CAN talk with it, and it CAN extract meaning from your words and provide useful responses, unlike anything we had before.

To me, the risk in this whole enterprise is that AI is inherently "better" than humans in several ways, and that these differences might be completely game-changing:

Namely it's much easier to scale up (power/size/interconnect bandwidth) compared to a research group or somesuch, and its also cheaper, faster, has better availability and is functionally immortal.

These advantages make it very likely to me that it WILL be replacing human white collar workers shortly-- simply because that's economical.

And the more interfaces you give it to physical reality (which it'll need to do its jobs), the higher the risk.

Speculating on if/when/how it will show awareness or self-interest is pure guesswork, but it's almost indefensible to call that likelihood zero.

Regarding promp injection: I'm highly confident that this will not be a long-term obstacle, even though I'm uncertain that it can be solved; there's two reasons why:

1) If SQL injection had been an "unfixable" problem, and everyone had known about it from the start, do you believe that this would have prevented the rollout of internet-connected databases? Because I don't think so, and my view on hallucinations is analogous (but I believe that problem might be more tractable).

2) Literally every person is vulnerable to prompt injection already; every salesman knows that it is quite feasible to coax people into acting against previous instructions and even their own interests if you are allowed to talk into them for a good while.

Re: Uncensored Models

#310

Post by tristor »

RecycledEle wrote: post #236
drxzcl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example of a piece of text that would be illegal to write (not transmit/communicate, just write) in the US?

Text that is illegal to write in the USA: 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 p…

None of that is illegal to write, some of it isn't even illegal to communicate. Most of the things there would only create a legal issue when communicated, but not when written, and in most cases are necessarily written by authorized persons.

Trade Secrets are basically always written down, they are not illegal to communicate, but doing so may violate a contract which would be a civil matter not a criminal matter. In the cases that the contract is either determined not to be binding or expired or was otherwise nullified, communicating trade secrets is an expected outcome. In fact, what makes something a trade secret is that a business takes actions and expends efforts to prevent its communication, as opposed to publishing it openly as a patent and getting legal governmental protections.

Post reply on HN