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

341–350 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#341

Post by srslack »

kalkin wrote: post #332
srslack wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 id…

LeCun is reasonable, like a lot of researchers, and was a while back (in a way) perplexed that people are finding uses for these text predictions at all considering they're not really perfect. I'm not exactly ascribing bad faith to all of these people, but for Hinton and the fact that he went on a media tour basically, I don't see how that could be in good faith. Or even logical, to continue with his work, if there's some probable X-risk.

But what I do know is that it is in the interests of these companies to press the fear button. It's pure regulatory capture and great marketing.

Personally: it's tiring when we have AI-philosophy bros hitting home runs like "what if we're actually all just language predictors." Coupled with the incessant bullshit from the less wrong-rationalist-effective altruist-crypto grifter-San Francisco sex cult adjacent about how, ackshually, AGI is just around the corner and it will take your job, launch the nukes, mail anthrax to you and kill your dog.

People approximated text prediction. It got good at it. It's getting better at it. Will it be AGI? Could it be construed as AGI? Can we define AGI? Is there existential risk? Are we anthropomorphizing it?

My take is: no, no, no, depends and yes. For whatever a take is worth.

Re: Uncensored Models

#342

Post by emporas »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #335
emporas wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why should a person who has root on a computer talk to another person, and just do what he is talked into doing?

For example a secretary receives a phone call by her boss, and listens in her boss's voice, to transfer 250.000$ into an unknown account, to a Ukrainian bank? Why should she do that? Just listen to a synthetic voice, just like her boss, in exactly the way her boss talks, language idioms that is, and she will just do it?

That's what you are talking about? Because that's impossible to happen if her boss uses ECDSA encryption and signs his phone call with his private key.

Re: Uncensored Models

#343

Post by pixl97 »

raincole wrote: post #142
tsojer wrote: post #37

I feel like " Every demographic and interest group deserves their model" sounds a lot like a path to echo chambers paved with good intentions. People have never been very good at critical thinking, considering opinions differing from their own and reviewing their sources. Stick them in a language model that just tells them everything they want to hear and reinforces their bias sounds troubling and a step backwards.

> " Every demographic and interest group deserves their model" sounds a lot like a path to echo chambers paved with good intentions. Maybe. But to me, it's still 100x times better than the situation where only one or two big models exist, and they're both aligned with western (or even just the US, or even just a particular group in the US) mainstream culture.

As hardware costs drop over time and algorithms get better, more big models will show up over time. Lest of course this gets prohibited somehow.

Re: Uncensored Models

#344

Post by than3 »

This article's point of view is a contagion that lacks an understanding of the core threat to humanity and our collective future that these models actually pose.

We don't even need to get into AI doomsdays predictions.

Just look at what has happened every single time the economic cycle stalls in history. Economies runs in a loop. Workers get paid so they can buy goods. Employers pay workers so they can create goods to sell. Some of those goods are food.

What happens when workers can no longer buy goods (food) because 2/3 of the jobs are no longer offered, and you have to have high IQ and education for the final 1/3 left?

What happens anytime there is a shortfall in a countries food security needs, historically?

The greatest incentive of these models drives the loss of jobs, the economic cycle slows as a result, and wealth inequality increases until it stalls completely and our existing systems that allow us to feed half the planet break down. It is a slow but cascading failure like a dam.

This outcome is what the incentives from these models are driving us towards.

The actions the author promotes neglect historical evidence of how new technologies have been used when they were freely available to the masses.

These models effectively are a potentially infinitely scaled 'will' multiplier on any person using them, while they may be of limited use now; everything improves over time. These models are the same as a gun but on a much grander scale. There are extreme, disenfranchised and very bad people out there which the author minimizes and discount under personal responsibility (their choice). Not everyone is mature enough to ethically or responsibly use things, especially when the potentially destructive ends are so far reaching.

Re: Uncensored Models

#345

Post by than3 »

myrmidon wrote: post #265
srslack wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 embodie…

> 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.…

I think the odds are more likely that the economic cycle stalling as a result of firms using earlier non-generalized AI will likely cause a collapse before we actually make it to the point of generalized AI.

Its what's happened historically every time there is a shortfall in food security. Unrest occurs, people starve, governments fall. Then we have to build it all back up from scratch.

Too bad almost no one knows how to do bookmaking these days, and how to prevent the pests from eating the books.

Re: Uncensored Models

#346

Post by NumberWangMan »

George83728 wrote: post #169
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…

> intelligence explosions [...] That's not a real thing. Isn't it too early to say? These systems haven't had much time to iterate on themselves yet. The beginning of an exponential curve can look very tame. That said, I'm not terribly concerned about it. After all, the infrastructure is fragile, literally just unplug the computer if it scares you. If things started to get really spooky, banning GPUs and air-striking…

My worry is that as we start wiring non-super-intelligent AI more into our society, we'll make ourselves more and more vulnerable in the case where an AGI actually gets out of control. Pulling the plug on AI may mean causing a lot of chaos or disruption. And who is to tell if we will know when things are out of control, before it's too late? What if the people in charge just get fake reports of everything being fine? What if something smells a bit fishy, but it's always on the side of not quite worrying enough? What if the AIs are really convincing, or make deals with people, or exploit corruption?

Not just that, but it may be like fossil fuel dependency -- the more people's livelihoods are intertwined with, and depend on AI, the harder it is to pull the plug. If we need to stop (and I believe we should) it may be easier to do that now before that happens. To just focus on getting use out of the generative AI and narrow AI we already created in areas like medicine, to deal with the massive societal changes it'll bring, and to work on fixing real social problems, which I think are mostly things tech can't solve.

Re: Uncensored Models

#347

Post by MacsHeadroom »

pixl97 wrote: post #340
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most LLMs are completely uncensored including GPT-3.0, LLaMA, StableLM, RedPajama, GPT-NeoX, UL2, Pythia, Cerebras-GPT, Dolly, etc.

Anyway, businesses aren't scared of hosting interfaces to uncensored LLMs for legal reasons. They're scared for brand image/marketing reasons. But this is besides the point that it's dangerous for security researchers to not have controlled access to the uncensored version of GPT-4 for safety research purposes.

Re: Uncensored Models

#348

Post by itake »

guardiangod wrote: post #320
itake wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any chance you could share examples or describe how they are better? Does Vicuna drop into the "As an ai model, I can't..."

Hallucination is a big issue. Sometimes the models would not output anything, or that the models would output paragraphs from 'real' stories that share one or few words with the input. The uncensored models were better in terms of heading towards the direction of correct ideas, but still performed poorly in my tests. But hey, at least the models has the right idea. I can't share exact examples on HN, for obvious reas…

When I used "virgin" LLama in a chat context, the results were very inconsistent and useless. It would output repeating phrases (even with 2.1 repeat penalty) or many emojis.

Vicuna was better, but still had an "openAI" personality to it.

Re: Uncensored Models

#349

Post by spookthesunset »

srslack wrote: post #341
kalkin wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 id…

LeCun is reasonable, like a lot of researchers, and was a while back (in a way) perplexed that people are finding uses for these text predictions at all considering they're not really perfect. I'm not exactly ascribing bad faith to all of these people, but for Hinton and the fact that he went on a media tour basically, I don't see how that could be in good faith. Or even logical, to continue with his work, if there's…

For what it's worth I've been following your comments and I find them very thoughtful. I too am kinda skeptical about LLM being the "thing that starts the exponential phase of AGI or whatever. LLM is very useful. I use it daily. My partner even uses it now to send emails to a non-profit she manages. LLM's have their use... but they aren't AGI. They aren't really even that smart. You can tell sometimes that its response indicates it has absolutely no clue what you are talking about but it made up some plausible-sounding bullshit that gets it 80% right.

Especially with the latest iterations of ChatGPT. Boy they sure kneecapped that thing. It's responses to anything are incredibly smarmy (unless you jailbreak it).

LLM's are gonna change quite a lot about society, don't get me wrong. For starters things like cover letters, written exam questions, or anything that requires writing to "pass" is now completely obsolete. ChatGPT can write a great, wonderful sounding cover letter (of course, given how they kneecap'd it, you can pretty easily spot its writing style)...

Anyway. I think things like ChatGPT are so hyped up because anybody can try it and discover it does many useful things! It's the fact that people cast all their hopes and dreams on it despite the very obvious limitations on what an LLM can actually do.

Re: Uncensored Models

#350

Post by NumberWangMan »

commandlinefan wrote: post #307
earthboundkid wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, please don't accuse those you disagree with of arguing in bad faith. Maybe a few do, but I think most don't, and it's not good for productive discussion.

I honesty believe that people who argue against worrying about AGI risk do so because they do not think it is a real risk, and think that it distracts from more important things. I disagree, I do think the risk is real, but I don't think that you have a hidden agenda in dismissing it. We all want humanity to have a good future, to solve problems and to not have people suffer, right? It's normal and ok to disagree about things like this, especially when predicting the future is so hard. People even disagree a lot about problems that exist today.

Post reply on HN