Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 455 posts

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#131

Post by pndy »

wistleblowanon wrote: post #55
bahmboo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just policy and alignment from Apple. Just because the Internet says a bunch of junk doesn't mean you want your model spewing it.

sure but models also can't see any truth on their own. They are literally butchered and lobotomized with filters and such. Even high IQ people struggle with certain truth after reading a lot, how is these models going to find it with so much filters?

This butchering and lobotomisation is exactly why I can't imagine we'll ever have a true AGI. At least not by hands of big companies - if at all.

Any successful product/service which will be sold as "true AGI" by company that will have the best marketing will be still ridden with top-down restrictions set by the winner. Because you gotta "think of the children".

Imagine HAL's "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" iconic line with insincere patronising cheerful tone - that's the thing we're going to get I'm afraid.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#132

Post by t-3 »

goopypoop wrote: post #104
avianlyric wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this wrong? Applying special treatment to politically exposed persons has been standard practice in every high risk industry for a very long time. The simple fact is that people get extremely emotional about politicians, politicians both receive obscene amounts of abuse, and have repeatedly demonstrated they’re not above weaponising tools like this for their own goals. Seems perfectly reasonable that Apple doe…

What's bad to do to a politician but fine to do to someone else?

There are many countries where it's illegal to criticize people holding political office, foreign heads of state, certain historical political figures etc., while still being legal to call your neighbor a dick.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#133

Post by echelon »

avianlyric wrote: post #89
echelon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's 1984 ad is so hypocritical today. This is Apple actively steering public thought. No code - anywhere - should look like this. I don't care if the politicians are right, left, or authoritarian. This is wrong.

Why is this wrong? Applying special treatment to politically exposed persons has been standard practice in every high risk industry for a very long time. The simple fact is that people get extremely emotional about politicians, politicians both receive obscene amounts of abuse, and have repeatedly demonstrated they’re not above weaponising tools like this for their own goals. Seems perfectly reasonable that Apple doe…

You can buy a MacBook and fashion the components into knives, bullets, and bombs. Apple does nothing to prevent you from doing this.

In fact, it's quite easy to buy billions of dangerous things using your MacBook and do whatever you will with them. Or simply leverage physics to do all the ill on your behalf. It's ridiculously easy to do a whole lot of harm.

Nobody does anything about the actually dangerous things, but we let Big Tech control our speech and steer the public discourse of civilization.

If you can buy a knife but not be free to think with your electronics, that says volumes.

Again, I don't care if this is Republicans, Democrats, or Xi and Putin. It does not matter. We should be free to think and communicate. Our brains should not be treated as criminals.

And it only starts here. It'll continue to get worse. As the platforms and AI hyperscalers grow, there will be less and less we can do with basic technology.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#135

Post by Waterluvian »

Terr_ wrote: post #111
qingcharles wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's totally performative. There's no way to stay ahead of the new language that people create. At what point do the new words become the actual words? Are there many instances of people using unalive IRL?

> There's no way to stay ahead of the new language that people create. I'm imagining a new exploit: After someone says something totally innocent, people gang up in the comments to act like a terrible vicious slur has been said, and then the moderation system (with an LLM involved somewhere) "learns" that an arbitrary term is heinous eand indirectly bans any discussion of that topic.

Hey I was pro-skub waaaay before all the anti-skub people switched sides.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#136

Post by bigyabai »

avianlyric wrote: post #103
bigyabai wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The criticism is still valid. In 1984, the Macintosh was a bicycle for the mind. In 2025, it's a smart-car that refuses to take you certain places that are considered a brand-risk. Both have ups and downs, but I think we're allowed to compare the experiences and speculate what the consequences might be.

I think gen AI is radically different to tools like photoshops or similar. In the past it was always extremely clear that the creator of content was the person operating the computer. Gen AI changes that, regardless of if your views on authorship of gen AI content. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people consider Gen AI output to be authored by the machine that generated it, and by extension the company t…

All I heard was a bunch of excuses.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#137

Post by furyofantares »

avianlyric wrote: post #103
bigyabai wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The criticism is still valid. In 1984, the Macintosh was a bicycle for the mind. In 2025, it's a smart-car that refuses to take you certain places that are considered a brand-risk. Both have ups and downs, but I think we're allowed to compare the experiences and speculate what the consequences might be.

I think gen AI is radically different to tools like photoshops or similar. In the past it was always extremely clear that the creator of content was the person operating the computer. Gen AI changes that, regardless of if your views on authorship of gen AI content. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people consider Gen AI output to be authored by the machine that generated it, and by extension the company t…

> The simple fact is that the vast majority of people consider Gen AI output to be authored by the machine that generated it

They do?

I routinely see people say "Here's an xyz I generated." They are stating that they did the do-ing, and the machine's role is implicitly acknowledged in the same was as a camera. And I'd be shocked if people didn't have a sense of authorship of the idea, as well as an increasing sense of authorship over the actual image the more they iterated on it with the model and/or curated variations.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#138

Post by waterproof »

t-3 wrote: post #126
userbinator wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This form of obfuscation has actually already occurred over a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockney_rhyming_slang

Rhyming slang rhymes tho. The recipient can understand what's meant by de-obfuscating in-context. Random strings substituted for $proscribed_word don't work in the same way.

In Cockney rhyming slang, the rhyming word (which would be easy to reverse engineer) is omitted. So if "stairs" is rhyme-paired with "apples and pears" and then people just use the word "apples" in place of "stairs". "Pears" is omitted in common use so you can't just reverse the rhyme.

The example photo on Wikipedia includes the rhyming words but that's not how it would be used IRL.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#139

Post by rgovostes »

Is this related in any way to Core ML model encryption (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coreml/encrypting-...)? I find that feature a little bizarre because Apple has historically avoided providing any kind of DRM solution for app asset protection.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#140

Post by pyuser583 »

avianlyric wrote: post #121
pyuser583 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not wrong, it just requires transparency. This is extremely untransparent. A while back a British politician was “de-banked” and his bank denied it. That’s extremely wrong. By all means: make distinctions. But let people know it! If I’m denied a mortgage because my uncle is a foreign head of state, let me know that’s the reason. Let the world know that’s the reason! Please!

> A while back a British politician was “de-banked” and his bank denied it. That’s extremely wrong. Cry me a river. I’ve worked in banks in the team making exactly these kinds of decisions. Trust me Nigel Farage knew exactly what happened and why. NatWest never denied it to the public, because they originally refused to comment on it. Commenting on the specifics details of a customer would be a horrific breach of cus…

> NatWest never denied it to the public, because they originally refused to comment on it.

Are you saying that Alison Rose did not leak to the BBC? Why was she forced to resign? I thought it was because she leaked false information to the press.

This isn’t a diversion. It’s exactly the problem with not being transparent. Of course Farage knew what happened, but how could he convince the public (he’s a public figure), when the bank is lying to the press?

The bank started with a lie (claiming he was exited because the account was too low), and kept lying!

These were active lies, not simply a refusal to explain their reasons.

Post reply on HN