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

141–150 of 389 posts

Re: Uncensored Models

#141

Post by iainmerrick »

leroy-is-here wrote: post #124
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…

A “superhuman” AI is just a machine, a very expensive one. It can be turned off and we control the outputs it has. Why would an AI have the ability to launch nuclear weapons unless we gave it a button? A “superhuman” intelligence is without a body, so we control any interfaces it has access to. The Internet could be accessed, but any attempt to “hack” through the Internet is met by routine packet defenses. The AI is…

Who's "we"?

Re: Uncensored Models

#142

Post by raincole »

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.

Re: Uncensored Models

#144

Post by pc86 »

akiselev wrote: post #126
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…

> Because I view myself ABSOLUTELY not as some kind of AI luddite, but I honestly belief that this is one of the very few credible extinction threats that we face, and I'm counting NEITHER climate change nor nuclear war in that category, for reference. This is absurd histrionics, Daily Mail CAPSLOCK and all. We’ve got signs of an unprecedented heat wave coming with ocean temperatures two standard deviations above nor…

I think the AI-is-going-to-kill-everyone hysteria is absolutely overblown, both by those who believe it, and the media covering them, but one thing that's always bothered me about the counterpoint is that it a common argument is "AI is bad at what we want it to do so how can it be dangerous?"

This imagines that the only way for AI to do serious harm to us (not even in a "kill everyone" sense) is for it to be some super-competent Skynet-level time traveling demigod. I think it's much more likely that if there is some sort of AI calamity resulting in a lot of deaths, it's because the AI just doesn't work very well and ends up breaking all the HVAC systems in a country during a heat wave or something, rather than a singularity-type event where it "decides" to actively start hunting humans.

Re: Uncensored Models

#145

Post by concordDance »

akiselev wrote: post #126
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…

> Because I view myself ABSOLUTELY not as some kind of AI luddite, but I honestly belief that this is one of the very few credible extinction threats that we face, and I'm counting NEITHER climate change nor nuclear war in that category, for reference. This is absurd histrionics, Daily Mail CAPSLOCK and all. We’ve got signs of an unprecedented heat wave coming with ocean temperatures two standard deviations above nor…

No serious climate projections that I'm aware of even reduce Earth's carrying capacity under 10 billion over the next couple of centuries. While very serious (to the tune of trillions of dollars and tens of millions of excess deaths), it is not an extinction level threat, unlike something that is to us what we are to chimpanzees (humans have made many animals extinct on accident). Does such a thing exist right now? No. Could it exist this century? Maybe.

Re: Uncensored Models

#146

Post by pjc50 »

aiisjustanif wrote: post #139
pjc50 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So long as they ares aligned so as not to be deleterious to the security of our communities. Whose community, though? > They don't want a disgruntled employee of some small town factory asking models how to make a bomb A lesson from the Unabomber (and many other incidents) that I think people have overlooked is the "_how_ to commit terrorism" is only one part, and the "_why_ commit terrorism" is another. An AI whic…

Those two points do not seem equal weight in risk, but they are both concerning.

Personally it seems that bomb-building and other terrorist information is already fairly well available, as well as the US being awash with guns, and it's the ideological motivation that's the limiting factor for why we don't see much more terrorism.

Re: Uncensored Models

#147

Post by gfodor »

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.

Possibly, but nobody should get to decide. If it turns out these groups want their own echo chamber models, then they should be able to make them. It’s pretty simple. (Fwiw, I don’t think this scenario will occur, the author was just making a point about freedom.)

Re: Uncensored Models

#148

Post by femiagbabiaka »

mort96 wrote: post #20
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…

You're doing the "vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy" thing. You don't have to agree that alignment is a real issue. But for those who do think it's a real issue, it has nothing to do with morals of individuals or how one should behave interpersonally. People who are worried about alignment issues are worried about the danger unaligned AI poses to humanity; the harm which can be done by some super-intelligent sy…

The writers of the stochastic parrots paper do not seem to be concerned about unaligned “AI” (text generators) posing a threat to humanity in the way that the doomsayers are. It’s in the title: “stochastic parrot” is a rebuke of those calling LLMs AGI.

Re: Uncensored Models

#149

Post by mschuster91 »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #107
mschuster91 wrote: post #63

> Enjoy responsibly. You are responsible for whatever you do with the output of these models, just like you are responsible for whatever you do with a knife, a car, or a lighter. The problem is: if I do something with a knife, say I threaten someone to stab them, I can and will get charged by the court for that crime. If I use AI to create content that incites violence (say, I create a video alleging a Quran burning)…

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 that these systems have drastically lowered the barrier to entry to create harmful content.

Everyone can rig up an AI prompt to draw a convincing picture of a politician having sexual intercourse with a child in a matter of mere minutes - a work that would take even a dedicated visual artist many hours. For "voice cloning" AI, it's even worse, as it was practically impossible to emulate that unless you had access to a person talented enough to re-enact voices - and now anyone can pull off completely "legitimate" sounding prank voice calls.

The general availability of such specialized AI completely erodes trust in anything not happening face-to-face - it was already bad enough with people denying actual genocides (Armenia, the Holocaust, Bosnia), but now? How can we even make sure historians can trust records from our time period?

Re: Uncensored Models

#150

Post by alextheparrot »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #148
mort96 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing the "vaguely gesturing at imagined hypocrisy" thing. You don't have to agree that alignment is a real issue. But for those who do think it's a real issue, it has nothing to do with morals of individuals or how one should behave interpersonally. People who are worried about alignment issues are worried about the danger unaligned AI poses to humanity; the harm which can be done by some super-intelligent sy…

The writers of the stochastic parrots paper do not seem to be concerned about unaligned “AI” (text generators) posing a threat to humanity in the way that the doomsayers are. It’s in the title: “stochastic parrot” is a rebuke of those calling LLMs AGI.

Somehow once I attended to your tokens “stochastic parrots” the rest of your words became much more predictable
Post reply on HN