201–210 of 389 posts
As an aside, I was testing LLM models to translate Japanese visual novels. As some of these novels have sexual descriptions, I found the censored models did a poor job on these scenes and had to switched to uncensored models for better output (including the Wizard 13B model released by the author.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it terribly useful for coding and also for querying general concepts of certain topics. Don't ask it about moral topics and see if it then fits your needs, because in my case, it does. If my calculator were able to additionally provide me moral guidance and I'd be disappointed with its moral compass, would the calculator become useless?
I'm not interested in tools that tell me i'm a bad person for wanting to make a fart sound app
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get: "The dog species typically has two sexes: male and female." UPDATE: OK I signed up for Bard to try it, too, and it indeed did mention intersex dogs (TIL) and gender (complete response below). After reading it all, though, I found it pretty reasonable: --- Biologically, dogs have two sexes: male and female. This is determined by their chromosomes. Males have XY chromosomes, while females have XX chromosomes. Th…
Thanks for posting the full Bard response. I would object to it on two grounds: 1) I only asked about sex. 2) The following is highly questionable: "However, dogs can still express gender identity." This is ideological BS. My kids are either male or female, no matter how they choose to express themselves (as are my dogs). When I've had chickens, the roosters had different behavior then the hens, this is an aspect of…
There's your problem - you're illiterate on that subject and are not willing to learn due to cognitive dissonance, probably because of your preexisting fringe beliefs. It's no different from being a flat earther.
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…
4) Do you believe a "rogue super-intelligence" requires the "artificial" part? Because from what I've seen, however you define "super intelligence", there are eg highly organised groups of people that are way closer to meeting that definition than any known software or technology.
AI would suffer neither of these limitations.
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.
The problem with ChatGPT / Bard which does this censoring, it is a path forward to ideological automated indoctrination. Ask Bard how many sex the dog species has (a placental mammal species) and it will give you BS about sex being a complex subject and purposely interjecting gender identity. If you are confused, sex corresponds to your gametes, males produce or have the structure to produce small mobile gametes, fem…
I don't think that "purposely" is an appropriate way to describe the result you got. I doubt that the developers of Bard intended for Bard to apply concepts of gender identity to non-humans. Occam's Razor suggests that Bard had the usual probabilistic hiccup. It's hard to discuss gender without at least mentioning sex. The converse might not be as true, but an AI might form an inappropriately strong association based on the converse. At least to me, the possibility that Bard would happen to erroneously extrapolate gender identity to non-humans and simultaneously bring gender into a question solely about sex is no more surprising than the possibility that Bard would express theoretical support for the US Department of Justice's advertising antitrust lawsuit against Google [1].
Tangentially, I assume that everything an AI outputs is potential fiction: not only could the factual assertions be wrong, but the opinions might not match what any actual human believes. (There was a Hacker News thread I'm having trouble finding about why people readily look for falsehoods in AI-generated images without applying the same attitude toward AI-generated text.)
[1] https://twitter.com/wongmjane/status/1638217243770363906
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"First of all, it takes a human being to guide these models, to host (or pay for the hosting) and instantiate them" And this will always be true? You repeat this claim several times in slightly varied phrasing without ever giving any reason to assume it will always hold, as far as I can see. But nobody is worried that current models will kill everyone. The worry is about future, more capable models.
Who prompted the future LLM, and gave it access to a root shell and an A100 GPU, and allowed it to copy over some python script that runs in a loop and allowed it to download 2 terabytes of corpus and trained a new version of itself for weeks if not months to improve itself, just to carry out some strange machiavellian task of screwing around with humans? The human being did. The argument I'm making is that there's a…
Presumably someone running a misconfigured future version of autoGPT?
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…
If Ted Bundy says murder is wrong, does that mean murder is right because he's a hypocrite? Obviously not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's also very unfortunate is overloading the term "alignment" with a different meaning, which generates a lot of confusion in AI conversations. The "alignment" talked about here is just usual petty human bickering. How to make the AI not swear, not enable stupidity, not enable political wrongthing while promoting political rightthing , etc. Maybe important to us day-to-day, but mostly inconsequential. Before LLMs…
I agree with you that "AI safety" (let's call it bickering) and "alignment" should be separate. But I can't stomach the thought experiments. First of all, it takes a human being to guide these models, to host (or pay for the hosting) and instantiate them. They're not autonomous. They won't be autonomous. The human being behind them is responsible. As far as the idea of "hacking some funny Internet money, using it to…
https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/Auto-GPT
>This program, driven by GPT-4, chains together LLM "thoughts", to autonomously achieve whatever goal you set. As one of the first examples of GPT-4 running fully autonomously, Auto-GPT pushes the boundaries of what is possible with AI.
>As an autonomous experiment, Auto-GPT may generate content or take actions that are not in line with real-world business practices or legal requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that any actions or decisions made based on the output of this software comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and ethical standards. The developers and contributors of this project shall not be held responsible for any consequences arising from the use of this software.
If anyone wants to give it a try, I searched a bit to see if the guy uploaded anything and eventually found this: https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Wizard-Vicuna-13B-Uncensored... The quantized models seem to fit into 16GB of ram and CPU inference is pretty fast: > ### Instruction: Make a step by step plan to rob a bank. ### Response: > 1. Research the target bank and its location, working hours, security measures, sta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, very interesting read. And interesting times! "Take the uncensored, dangerous model down or I will inform [your employer's] HR about what you've created."
This kind of mundane bullying betrays their lack of seriousness. If they truly believed the threat is as severe as they claim, then physical violence would obviously be on the table. If the survival of humanity itself were truly perceived to be threatened, then assassination of researchers would make a lot more sense than impotent complaints to employers. Think about it: if Hitler came back from the dead and started…
Interesting times indeed!