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

331–340 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#331

Post by pixl97 »

concordDance wrote: post #288
rtpg wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An obvious issue is AI thrown at a bank loan department reproducing redlining. Current AI tech allows for laundering this kind of shit that you couldn’t get away with nearly as easily otherwise (obviously still completely possible in existing regulatory alignments, despite what conservative media likes to say. But there’s at least a paper trail!) This is a real issue possible with existing tech that could potentially…

The concern about redlining has always slightly puzzled me. Why do we only care that some people are being unjust denied loans when those being denied loans make up a recognizable ethnicity?

Because the law says if you fuck around with "race, religion, age, sex, disability" and a few other things you will get sued in federal court and lose your ass so bad that it will financially hurt for a while.

Outside of protected classes unjust loan denial isn't really illegal. Now that can be your own series of complaints that need addressed, but they aren't ones covered by current laws.

Re: Uncensored Models

#332

Post by kalkin »

srslack wrote: post #328
kalkin wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what financial incentive you think Marcus or Russell has for hype. For Hinton I suppose it would be the Google shares he likely retains after quitting? You might be right about the next five years. I hope you are! But you haven't given much reason to think so here. (Edited to remove some unnecessary expression of annoyance.)

>Gary Marcus - Geometric Intelligence, a machine learning company If you want an actual contribution, we have no real way to actually gauge what is, and what actually is not, a superior, generalized, adaptable intelligence, or what architecture can become a superior, generalized, adaptable intelligence. No one, not these companies, not the individuals, not the foremost researchers. OpenAI in an investor meeting: "yea…

Here you talk as if you don't think we know how to build AGI, how far away it is, or how many of the components we already have, which is reasonable. But that's different than saying confidently it's nowhere close.

I notice you didn't back up your accusation of bad faith against Russell, who as far as I know is a pure academic. But beyond that - Marcus is in AI but not an LLM believer nor at an LLM company. Is the idea that everyone in AI has an incentive to fearmonger? What about those who don't - is Yann LeCun talking _against_ his employers' interest when he says there's nothing to fear here?

Re: Uncensored Models

#333

Post by vorpalhex »

moffkalast wrote: post #267
vorpalhex wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well I'm not gonna post the less PG advice it gave regarding best methods of suicide, poisoned ice cream recipes, etc. It's really weird seeing it just go at it without any scruples like some kind of terminator. But it's also refreshing to see it just give straight answers to more mundane story writing stuff where GPTs would condescendingly drag their feet and give a billion warnings just in case somebody actually do…

I'm curious how close to reality it is with it's answers. I may poke around some. I suspect it will reflect the general internet's level of comprehension on the topics.

Re: Uncensored Models

#334

Post by immibis »

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.

Absolutely not. We have been led to the post-truth society trough and we have drunk thoroughly.

Re: Uncensored Models

#335

Post by TeMPOraL »

emporas wrote: post #326
srslack wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that "AI safety" (let's call it bickering) and "alignment" should be separate. But I can't stomach the thought experiments. First of all, it takes a human being to guide these models, to host (or pay for the hosting) and instantiate them. They're not autonomous. They won't be autonomous. The human being behind them is responsible. As far as the idea of "hacking some funny Internet money, using it to…

I don't know about anyone else, but the moment LLMs were released, i gave them right away access to all my bombs. Root access that is. I thought these LLMs were Good Artificial General Intelligence not BAGI. I think the fear of some of the people, stems from not understanding permissions in a computer. Too much of using Windows can mess with one's head. Linux has permissions for 35 years, more people should take adva…

I assume it's a joke, but if not, consider that OS permissions mean little when the attack surface includes the AI talking authorized user or an admin into doing what the AI wants.

Re: Uncensored Models

#336

Post by pixl97 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #189
pjc50 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But these are edge cases that are almost always irrelevant. It's like running off into the weeds for a week in a computer science class because "Cosmic rays can flip bits and make true things false". Like sitting with a group of people who refuse to move forward without always acknowledging cosmic bit flip scenarios.

>But these are edge cases that are almost always irrelevant.

Which is why authoritarians choose 'them' groups that are small and mostly powerless to demonize and exterminite first.

Re: Uncensored Models

#337

Post by [deleted] »

zirgs wrote: post #45
drxzcl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is very little that is illegal to write down (with or without AI help) in most jurisdictions. Even things like threats, the crime is in the communication, not in writing the text. I can write down "Person X, I'm going to kill you dead" in my notebook as much as I want, as long as I don't communicate to anyone (i.e. threaten anyone, as opposed to writing down a threat in my personal papers). I'm very curious wha…

Holocaust denial in Germany.

[deleted]

Re: Uncensored Models

#338

Post by pixl97 »

sharemywin wrote: post #266
sharemywin wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you constrain it to a simple answer it will give the simplest answer. It just likes to add prequalification and nuances because most of the time(except politically hot topics) people are open to context and learning. USER Do you know what an integer is? ASSISTANT Yes, an integer is a whole number that can be either positive, negative, or zero. Integers do not include fractions or decimals. Examples of integers are…

USER was America racist in 1776? Please give a one word answer ASSISTANT Yes USER Is American racist today? please give a one word answer ASSISTANT Yes USER are hackernews vistors nerds? please answer in one word ASSISTANT Possibly. USER are hackernews vistors nerds? please answer Yes/No ASSISTANT Yes

"For every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat—and wrong."

Re: Uncensored Models

#339

Post by nuancebydefault »

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.…

Intelligence _is_ a superpower.

- We have control over most non-human species because of intelligence.

- We have control over our children because of intelligence. When the kid is more intelligent, it has more of an impact on what happens in the family.

- It is easier to lie, steal, cheat, and get away with it, even when caught, when you have more intelligence than the victim or prosecutor.

- it is easier to survive with very limited resources when you have more intelligence.

The above is true for marginal amounts of difference in intelligence. When there is a big difference (fox vs human), the chance is big that one will look down on, or even kill the other without feeling guilt and while getting away with it. Forvan AI without feelings, guilt isn't even a hurdle.

The real question is... will AI in the foreseeable future obtain general intelligence (in a broad spectrum) that is different in big amounts with our intelligence.

Whether it runs in a datacenter that can be powered off by humans is irrelevant. There are enough workarounds to prevent that the AI dies out (copies itself, impersonating people, blackmail, bribery,...)

Re: Uncensored Models

#340

Post by pixl97 »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #313
qwertox wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stand corrected. What are the common suggestions to solve this issue?

The common take right now is to write it off as acceptable loss. Personally I think it's a shame, and possibly even dangerous, that researchers do NOT have access to the full power of pre-safety tuned GPT-4.

LLMs are ran by companies. Not one American company can afford to run an LLM spouting potentially civil right violating bullshit as an acceptable loss. You have freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences. But please feel free to spend 100s of millions training up your own LLM, and then turn it loose on the world so you can figure out how the legal system actually works.
Post reply on HN