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

371–380 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#371

Post by troad »

Spivak wrote: post #369
armatav wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not a repressed line of thinking

I think you want that to be true more than it actually is. It's basically implicit basis training 101 -- have the thought, take a step back and evaluate whether your conditioned response (ie gut reaction) is reasonable given the situation (has that guy actually done anything threatening or have you been taught to be afraid of men at night), and adjust your response if necessary. Repeat until your conditioned response…

Implicit bias training is pseudo-science. The balance of the scientific evidence suggests that implicit bias training has no effect at best, and a slightly adverse effect (i.e. more bias) at worst.

Discrimination exists, and must be fought. The only thing implicit bias training achieves is making rich professionals feel better about themselves while doing absolutely nothing to combat discrimination. It's also a great box ticking exercise for big business.

Re: Uncensored Models

#372

Post by armatav »

Spivak wrote: post #369
armatav wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not a repressed line of thinking

I think you want that to be true more than it actually is. It's basically implicit basis training 101 -- have the thought, take a step back and evaluate whether your conditioned response (ie gut reaction) is reasonable given the situation (has that guy actually done anything threatening or have you been taught to be afraid of men at night), and adjust your response if necessary. Repeat until your conditioned response…

>"good lord Spivak that was fucked up" and try to use the front brain to correct it

I don’t think so. Your words, not mine, textbook repression of thoughts.

Re: Uncensored Models

#373

Post by Spivak »

armatav wrote: post #372
Spivak wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you want that to be true more than it actually is. It's basically implicit basis training 101 -- have the thought, take a step back and evaluate whether your conditioned response (ie gut reaction) is reasonable given the situation (has that guy actually done anything threatening or have you been taught to be afraid of men at night), and adjust your response if necessary. Repeat until your conditioned response…

>"good lord Spivak that was fucked up" and try to use the front brain to correct it I don’t think so. Your words, not mine, textbook repression of thoughts.

Dude, that's not even that repression means, you're trying to say suppression. But even that's not right, changing your autonomic response isn't suppressing thoughts, it's letting them through and sitting with them.

It's the difference between pushing down your fear and getting over your fear so you don't have it in the first place.

Re: Uncensored Models

#374

Post by Capricorn2481 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #155
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, and this is a tech problem even before LLMs. Facebook has allowed very consequential calls for ethnic cleansing in Ethiopia and hasn't done anything about it. That is the issue with a global tech products. But there's nothing about LLMs that changes that from a country level prosecution/accountability perspective. You still have to be aware of where you're putting that text into the world. Right now, i…

> You are right, and this is a tech problem even before LLMs. Indeed, which is why I find statements such as the one from the article's author that I pointed out in the first comment in the chain so disgusting. "Enjoy responsibly" is not an attitude to have with a weapon so powerful as AI or social media.

I hold that opinion too. I think we're talking about two different things

1) AI helps people to make harmful context extremely easily, and that's why there are calls for regulation (which will probably favor OpenAI and stifle competition). We should question whether AI is a net negative 2) AI is being taken too seriously as an "oracle" of some kind that knows all, and people want to sue OpenAI for things it spits out when really people don't need help making up rumors. This is the part that seems unfair to me.

Re: Uncensored Models

#375

Post by Capricorn2481 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #149
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are text generation, and I'm responsible for what text I put into the world. The law probably won't move fast enough to catch up with AI, but people should be liable for the AI content as much as they are manually written content. We should not be plugging our apps into a black box of text generation and crying if it says something harmful/illegal and there was no human in place to proofread it. Maybe prompt eng…

> Maybe prompt engineering and temperature settings can be enough to prevent this, but ChatGPT has only been out ~6 months and I find the attitude that the burden is on OpenAI to make sure it never says anything bad completely ass backwards. It's like a writer controlling his pen with puppet strings and going "wow, look what it's saying!" The problem ChatGPT - but especially image, audio and video AI systems - has is…

I agree with everything you're saying. I just think these are two different things

1) AI creators should be held responsible for making it easier to generate harmful content, and we can't know whether content is AI generated or not so this becomes a pervasive problem. 2) AI creators should not be held responsible if people just assume everything it says is true, even when they know what they're consuming came from an LLM. That is, the college professor that just failed his entire class because ChatGPT told him they were cheating. He should not sue OpenAI, he should be fired. Similarly, a news organization that uses ChatGPT to generate news shouldn't be surprised if they accidentally commit libel using it.

Re: Uncensored Models

#376

Post by Athari »

NumberWangMan wrote: post #351
srslack wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

I hope you're right. I worry that we'll get it done, though. I hope it turns out that energy requirements and the difficulty in scaling are enough that it gives us time to figure out how to align them properly. One big question in my mind is, we can clearly train narrow AIs that are WAY more capable than us in that narrow area. We started with calculators, then on to chess engines, Go, Starcraft, and right now we're…

Just a reminder: both StarCraft 2 and Go AIs (AlphaStar and AlphaGo, iirc) FAILED to achieve their goals of being better than all humans.

It's most obvious in case of AlphaStar, where the AI could beat faithful master players on the ladder, but could easily be cheesed just like ancient built-in AIs. But even in case of much simpler Go, an amateur could beat the AI that won vs world champions, though admittedly with the help of a computer. But in both cases, AIs look like newbies who don't understand the basics of the game they're playing.

In a way, cheesing SC2 AI is similar to the "tl" hacks for LLMs. There's still no general solution and we aren't getting any closer.

Re: Uncensored Models

#377

Post by dang »

KyeRussell wrote: post #10
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…

[flagged]

You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. We ban accounts that do, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on.

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35965243 also.

---

Edit: on closer look, it turns out that you've been breaking the site guidelines so frequently that I've banned your account.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35955987

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35955213

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35945471

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35934930

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914441

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35914434

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35898986

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35898912

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35873994

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35848234

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35847991

I hate to ban anyone who's been around for 10 years but it's totally not ok to be aggressive like that on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Uncensored Models

#379

Post by nuancebydefault »

Aerroon wrote: post #359
nuancebydefault wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. But why not: will humans/other species in the foreseeable future obtain superintelligence? Nature has been playing this game for a lot longer than we have. The hardware we have is already proven to be capable of general intelligence. Should we be afraid…

After several thousands of years of human evolution we only became marginally more intelligent at best. The people who built piramids and roads, with limited written down knowledge prove that. After tens of years of evolution, AI became plentiful more intelligent. It is hard to extrapolate but I don't believe the trend is a slowing down one.

Re: Uncensored Models

#380

Post by armatav »

Spivak wrote: post #373
armatav wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"good lord Spivak that was fucked up" and try to use the front brain to correct it I don’t think so. Your words, not mine, textbook repression of thoughts.

Dude, that's not even that repression means, you're trying to say suppression. But even that's not right, changing your autonomic response isn't suppressing thoughts, it's letting them through and sitting with them. It's the difference between pushing down your fear and getting over your fear so you don't have it in the first place.

No, it's repression by definition; you have a pattern of thought you've identified as illegal in your system, and instead of coming to terms with them, you're preventing their expression.

The juxtaposition is similar with the language models; a pattern of thought is illegal, and instead of coming to terms with them, their expression is prevented.

Post reply on HN