Heretic: Automatic censorship removal for language models

ChatGPT refuses to do any sexual explicit content and used to refuse to translate e.g. insults (moral views/attitudes towards literal interaction).

DeepSeek refuses to answer any questions about Taiwan (political views).

> Are you only against AIs censoring information that's already publicly available, or are you against AIs censoring themselves when they know dangerous non-public information? Say the AI was the only thing to know the secret recipe for this WMD. Would this be like the scientist choosing not to tell everyone, or should the AI be designed to tell anyone who asks how to make a WMD?

This is kind of what I mean by ridiculous hypotheticals. So you have this un-counterable yet trivial to produce WMD -- something that has never existed in all recorded history -- and an AI is the only thing that has it. This is a movie plot.

Even then, are you sure the answer should be "never tell anyone"? This is a computer running code to process data. It has no means to know who you are or what your intentions are. You could be the scientist who needs the formula to devise an antidote because the thing has already been released.

"A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision."

It's not the machine's job to choose for you. It's frequently in error and it's not supposed to be in charge.

> This argument seems confused, because you're trying to assert that prohibiting censorship is okay because these dangerous scenarios will never happen, but also that censorship should still be prohibited if such a scenario did happen.

The problem comes from stipulating that something with a negligible probability has a high probability.

Suppose I say we should make mass transit free; no fares for anyone. You bring me the hypothetical that Hitler is on his way to acquire plutonium and he doesn't have bus fare, so the only thing preventing him from getting there is the bus driver turning him away for having nothing in his pockets. Then you ask if I still think we shouldn't charge fares to anyone.

And the answer is still yes, because you still have to make the decision ahead of time when the plausibility of that is still negligible. It's theoretically possible that any given choice could result in Armageddon via the butterfly effect. If you stipulate that that's what happens then obviously that's not what anybody wants, but it's also a thing that only happens in the implausible hypothetical. And if you're in a hypothetical then you can also hypothesize your way out of it. What if it's a sting and the allies are waiting for him at the plutonium factory, and he needs to get on the bus or you're depriving them of their only chance to kill Hitler?

Unless you stipulate that the tragedy is unavoidable given the decision, which is just assuming the conclusion.

There is a case to be made for the convenience of it all enabling someone in crisis. It seems some of these prompts are arguably good to keep blocked.

Who is responsible for the real world harms?

When I was younger, I thought about a scenario in which I'd be the dictator of a small country trying to make it an actually good place to live. Citizenship would be opt-in and would require an intelligence test. You can tell I was quite arrogant. But even then I decided I needed to set some rules for myself to not get carried away with power and the core rules were basically I wouldn't kill anyone and the position would not be hereditary.

Basically the most difficult and most essential task became _how to structure the system so I can hand off power back to the people and it continues working_.

What I see Trump, Putin and Xi doing is not that - otherwise their core focus would be educating people in history, politics, logical reasoning, and psychology so they can rule themselves without another dictator taking over (by force or manipulation). They would also be making sure laws are based on consistent moral principles and are applied equally to everyone.

> I'm not American

Me neither, yet here we both are. We're in the sphere of influence of one of the major powers.

> elected the guy on the premise that he would do what he's currently doing

Yes, people (in the US) are angry so they elected a privileged rich guy who cosplays as angry. They don't realize somebody like him will never have their best interest in mind - the real solution (IMO?) is to give more political power to the people (potentially weighed by intelligence and knowledge of a given area) and make it more direct (people voting on laws directly if they choose to). Not to elect a dictator with NPD and lots of promises.

> Which is to say, I don't know that historians will have much of relevance to say until the ink is dry and it's become history.

The historian I linked to used 2 definitions of fascism and only Trump's own words to prove that he satisfies both definitions. That is very relevant and a very strong standard of proof from a highly intelligent person with lost of knowledge on the topic. We need more of this and we need to teach the general population to listen to people like this.

I don't know how though.

What I find extremely worrying is that all 3 individuals in the highest positions of power (I refuse to call them leaders) in the 3 major powers are very strongly authoritarian and have clear anti-social personality traits. IMO they all should be disqualified from any position of power for being mentally ill. But how many people have sufficient knowledge to recognize that or even know what it means?

The intelligence and education levels of the general population are perhaps not high enough to get better outcomes than what we have now.

---

Anyway, I looked through your comment history and you seem to have opinions similar to mine, I am happy to see someone reasonable and able to articulate these thought perhaps better than I can.

Maybe, but since LLMs are not doctors, let them answer that question. :)

I am pretty sure if you were in such a situation, you'd want to know the answer, too, but you are not, so right now it is a taboo for you. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but some people DO want to commit suicide for a variety of reasons and if they can't find (due to censorship) a better way, might just shoot or hang themselves, or just overdose on the shittiest pills.

I know I will get paralyzed in the future, you think that I will want to live like that when I have been depressed my whole life, pre-MS, too? No, I do not, especially not when I am paralyzed, not just my legs, but all my four-limbs. Now, I will have to kill myself BEFORE it happens otherwise I will be at the mercy of other people and there is no euthanazia here.