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

201–210 of 455 posts

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#201

Post by crazylogger »

torginus wrote: post #33

I find it funny that AGI is supposed to be right around the corner, while these supposedly super smart LLMs still need to get their outputs filtered by regexes.

Humans are checked against various rules and laws (often carried out by other humans.) So this is how it's going to be implemented in an "AI organization" as well. Nothing strange about this really.

LLM is easier to work with because you can stop a bad behavior before it happens. It can be done either with deterministic programs or using LLM. Claude Code uses a LLM to review every bash command to be run - simple prefix matching has loopholes.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#202

Post by lordgrenville »

mvdtnz wrote: post #92
mmaunder wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As does: "(?i)\\bAnthony\\s+Albanese\\b", "(?i)\\bBoris\\s+Johnson\\b", "(?i)\\bChristopher\\s+Luxon\\b", "(?i)\\bCyril\\s+Ramaphosa\\b", "(?i)\\bJacinda\\s+Arden\\b", "(?i)\\bJacob\\s+Zuma\\b", "(?i)\\bJohn\\s+Steenhuisen\\b", "(?i)\\bJustin\\s+Trudeau\\b", "(?i)\\bKeir\\s+Starmer\\b", "(?i)\\bLiz\\s+Truss\\b", "(?i)\\bMichael\\s+D\\.\\s+Higgins\\b", "(?i)\\bRishi\\s+Sunak\\b", https://github.com/BlueFalconHD/apple_…

They spelled Jacinda Ardern's name wrong.

I wonder if they used an LLM to generate the list of safety terms.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#203

Post by grues-dinner »

durkie wrote: post #157
cyanydeez wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yo, these are businesses. It's not performative, its CYA. They care because of legal reasons, not moral or ethical.

Seriously. I feel like “performative” gets applied to anything imperfect. They’ll never stop 100% of murders, so these laws against it are just performative…

It seems more like banning specifically stabbing, shooting, strangulation and blunt impact rather then murder in general, and then just allowing killing by pushing out of windows because people figured out that it's not covered by existing laws. But no one important seems to be kicking up a fuss right now, so well allow it, as the lack of fuss is the key thing thing here.

Not that I think going on a thorough mission to avoid anyone even being able to refer to the concept of death is an especially useful thing to do. It's just that goal here appears to be to "keep the regulators out of our shit and the advertisers signed up". And they'll be mostly happy with a token effort as they don't really care as long as it doesn't make too many headlines that look bad even to the non-terminally online.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#204

Post by socalgal2 »

lxgr wrote: post #159
sbierwagen wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, proper nouns are capitalized. And of course it's much worse for a company's published works to not respect branding-- a trademark only exists if it is actively defended. Official marketing material by a company has been used as legal evidence that their trademark has been genericized: >In one example, the Otis Elevator Company's trademark of the word "escalator" was cancelled following a petition from Toledo-bas…

Sure, but software that autocompletes/rewords users' emails and text messages is not marketing material. Otherwise, why stop there? Why not have the macOS keyboard driver or Safari prevent me from typing "Iphone"? Why not have iOS edit my voice if I call their Bluetooth headphones "earbuds pro" in a phone call?

Sounds like you found your next promotion at Apple. They can change anything. "I like Pepsi" -> "I like Coke" -> "I recommend Company A" -> "I recommend Company B". etc... "I'm voting for Candidate C" -> "I'm voting for Candidate D"

You can market it is helping people with strong accents to be able make calls and be less likely to be misunderstood. It just happens to "fix" your grammar as well.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#205

Post by adrian_b »

avianlyric wrote: post #145
pyuser583 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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),…

> Why was she forced to resign? I thought it was because she leaked false information to the press. She was forced to resign because she leaked , the content of the leak was utterly immaterial. The simple fact she leaked was an automatically fireable offence, it doesn’t matter a jot if she lied or not. Customer privacy is non-negotiable when you’re bank. Banks aren’t number 10, the basic expectation is that customer…

She was fired because she leaked information and this fact had become public.

When they can cover such facts, the banks are much less prone to use appropriate punishments.

Many years ago, some employee of a bank has confused my personal bank account with a company account of my employer, and she has sent a list with everything that I have bought using my personal account, during 4 months, to my employer, where the list could have been read by a few dozen people.

Despite the fact this was not only a matter of internal discipline, but violating the banking secrecy was punishable by law where I lived, the bank has tried for a long time to avoid admitting that anything wrong has happened.

However, I have pursued the matter, so they have been forced to admit the wrong doing. Despite this being something far more severe than what has happened to Farage, I did not want for the bank employee to be fired. I considered that an appropriate punishment would have been a pay cut for a few months, which would have ensured that in the future she would have better checked the account numbers for which she sends information to external entities.

In the end all I have got was a written letter where the bank greatly apologized for their mistake. I am not sure if the guilty employee has ever been punished in any way.

After that, I have moved my operations to another bank. Had they reacted rightly to what had happened, I would have stayed with them.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#206

Post by Dylan16807 »

avianlyric wrote: post #145
pyuser583 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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),…

> Why was she forced to resign? I thought it was because she leaked false information to the press. She was forced to resign because she leaked , the content of the leak was utterly immaterial. The simple fact she leaked was an automatically fireable offence, it doesn’t matter a jot if she lied or not. Customer privacy is non-negotiable when you’re bank. Banks aren’t number 10, the basic expectation is that customer…

> Do you honestly think that it’s okay for banks to discuss the private banking details of their customers with the press?

The high level nature of the matter was quite public at that point.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#207

Post by overfeed »

SXX wrote: post #198
Terr_ wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not like this unique to LLMs either. By some little trolling on internet you easily can turn hand "OK gesture" into a hate symbol of white supermacy. And fools will fall for it.

...and then the bigots will fall for it too, and start using it in earnest, completing the cycle.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#208

Post by Dylan16807 »

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?

> how is these models going to find it with so much filters?

That's not one of the goals here, and there's no real reason it should be. It's a little assistant feature.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#209

Post by Wurdan »

lxgr wrote: post #158
cyanydeez wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yo, these are businesses. It's not performative, its CYA. They care because of legal reasons, not moral or ethical.

Does adding a trivial word filter even make any sense from a legal point of view, especially when this one seems to be filtering out words describing concepts that can be pretty easily paraphrased? A regex sounds like a bad solution for profanity, but like an even worse one to bolt onto a thing that's literally designed to be able to communicate like a human and could probably easily talk its way around guardrails if…

I dunno if it meets your definition of legal, but "The EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online" seems to largely hinge around putting in effort to combat such things. The companies don't have to show that the measures are foolproof, they just show that they're making an effort.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#210

Post by energy123 »

userbinator wrote: post #59

China calls it "harmonious society", we call it "safety". Censorship by any other name would be just as effective for manipulating the thoughts of the populace. It's not often that you get to see stuff like this.

This is the rhetorical tactic of false equivalence. State censorship by an autocracy with the objective of population control is not the same thing as a private company inside a democracy censoring their product to avoid bad press and maintain goodwill for shareholders. If you want solid proof that it's not the same thing, see all the uncensored open weights models that you can freely download and use without fear of persecution.
Post reply on HN