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

261–270 of 455 posts

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#261

Post by adrian_b »

ghxst wrote: post #235
adrian_b wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

> I considered that an appropriate punishment would have been a pay cut for a few months This can absolutely cripple a family, I'd be really cautious wishing that upon someone if they wronged you without malice, though I completely understand where you are coming from. In this case at the very least, I'd want to know what went wrong and what they’re doing to make sure it doesn’t happen again. From a software-engineer…

After the big surprise of seeing at work a list with all my personal purchases included in a big set of documents to which I, together with a great number of other colleagues, had access, I went immediately to the bank and I reported the fact.

After some days had passed without seeing any consequence, I went again, this time discussing with some supervising employee, who attempted to convince me that this is some kind of minor mistake and there is no need to do anything about it.

However, I pointed to the precise law paragraphs condemning what they have done and I threatened with legal action. This escalation resulted in me being invited to a bigger branch of the bank, to a discussion with someone in a management position. This time they were extremely ass-kissing, I was shown also the guilty employee, who apologized herself, and eventually I let it go, though there were no clear guarantees that they will change their behavior to prevent such mistakes in the future.

Apparently the origin of the mistake had been a badly formulated database query, which had returned a set of accounts for which the transactions had to be reported to my employer. I had been receiving during the same time interval some money from my employer into my private account, corresponding to salary and travel expenses, and somehow those transactions were matched by the bad database query, grouping my private account with the company accounts. Then the set of account numbers was used to generate reports, without further verification of the account ownership.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#262

Post by fer »

qingcharles wrote: post #25
grues-dinner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that it didn't seem to include "unalive". Which as a phenomenon is so very telling that no one actually cares what people are really saying. Everyone, including the platforms knows what that means. It's all performative.

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.

Not even to match the current language. How would you censor LeBron James? It's French slang for jerking off[0].

[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFrance/comments/1lpnoj6/is_lebro...

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#263

Post by Meekro »

mschuster91 wrote: post #258
grues-dinner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that it didn't seem to include "unalive". Which as a phenomenon is so very telling that no one actually cares what people are really saying. Everyone, including the platforms knows what that means. It's all performative.

> Everyone, including the platforms knows what that means. Well, that's what happens when you let an enemy nation control one of the most biggest social networks there is. They just go try and see how far they can go. On the other hand, Americans and their fear of four letter words or, gasp, exposed nipples are just as braindead.

It's interesting how, in just 10-20 years, we've gone from criticizing The Great Firewall of China to basically admitting that they had the right idea (to limit the ability of the foreign internet to influence Chinese culture) and trying to do the same thing.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#264

Post by selfmodruntime »

grues-dinner wrote: post #19
trebligdivad wrote: post #10

Some of the combinations are a bit weird, This one has lots of stuff avoiding death....together with a set ensuring all the Apple brands have the correct capitalisation. Priorities hey! https://github.com/BlueFalconHD/apple_generative_model_safet...

Interesting that it didn't seem to include "unalive". Which as a phenomenon is so very telling that no one actually cares what people are really saying. Everyone, including the platforms knows what that means. It's all performative.

It's also a shining example of American puritanism. Asian models or those in Europe are far less censored.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#266

Post by like_any_other »

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…

> You’ll also quickly understand why companies are so cagey about explaining their decision making.

Because they want to perform political censorship without us knowing about it? You'll forgive me if I'm not too sympathetic to that.

I happen to be familiar with that case, and that is exactly what happened. The Coutts report explicitly found that he met the economic criteria for retention [0], but was dropped due to political reasons, among others his friendship with Novak Djokovic, and re-tweeting an allegedly transphobic joke by Ricky Gervais ("old fashioned women. You know, the ones with wombs.") [1].

To top it off, the BBC did their best to aid in this deception, reporting: Farage says he was effectively "de-banked" for his political views and that he is "far from alone" [2]

Contrary to the BBC's portrayal, this was not an unsupported opinion coming from Farage - he directly quoted what the bank itself wrote in their internal discussions on this matter, that he obtained through a subject access request.

Further, in their apology for getting the story wrong, the BBC wrote: "On 4 July, the BBC reported Mr Farage no longer met the financial requirements for Coutts, citing a source familiar with the matter. The former UKIP leader later obtained a Coutts report which indicated his political views were also considered." [3]

This is misleading past the point of deceit. The BBC tried to give the impression that financial requirements were the primary reason for the account closure, and his politics were just an at-best secondary "also". But the Coutts report explicitly said that he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”, so his politics were the primary and only reason.

Most of this information is absent in the BBC's reporting, which uses only vague, anodyne phrases like "political views" and "politically exposed person", avoids specifics, but does find time to cite Labour MP accusations that it is hypocritical how quickly the government reacted to banks trying to financially deplatform the enemy political faction, when the government hasn't yet rid itself of corruption.

So yes, you sure present a difficult "dilemma": Do we want powerful commercial and media interests to team up and lie to us, or do we want at least some degree of transparency and honesty in their dealings? Really there are no easy answers, and the choice would keep anyone up at night...

[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/nigel-farage-cou...

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/nigel-farage-cou... (Ignore Farage's hyperbole that collecting information posted to public Twitter accounts is "Stasi-style")

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-66296935

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66288464

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#267

Post by dkdbejwi383 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #146
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?

This is somewhat related to the concept of the "euphemism treadmill": the matter-of-fact term of today becomes the pejorative of tomorrow so a new term is invented to avoid the negative connotation of the original term. Then eventually the new term becomes a pejorative and the cycle continues.

It has been suggested - although I am unsure if there is strong evidence - that the word "bear" is a euphemism along these lines, meaning "brown one" for the since-forgotten original name for the animal, as it was allegedly believed to be either too frightful to say aloud, or would summon a bear.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#268

Post by Hackbraten »

energy123 wrote: post #210
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…

But who of the general populace has the technical skill to replace their on-device assistant with a free one? And that's if Apple even allows that?

In practice, there's not that much difference between a megacorporate monopolist and a state.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#269

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

Meekro wrote: post #263
mschuster91 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone, including the platforms knows what that means. Well, that's what happens when you let an enemy nation control one of the most biggest social networks there is. They just go try and see how far they can go. On the other hand, Americans and their fear of four letter words or, gasp, exposed nipples are just as braindead.

It's interesting how, in just 10-20 years, we've gone from criticizing The Great Firewall of China to basically admitting that they had the right idea (to limit the ability of the foreign internet to influence Chinese culture) and trying to do the same thing.

I look at from a framing of cultural reciprocity. If we could influence them and behave freely in their markets, they can do the same in ours.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#270

Post by sitharus »

jcynix wrote: post #224
sitharus wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn’t, it’s a reference to a Perry Bible Fellowship comic https://pbfcomics.com/comics/skub/ (This one is sfw, not all of the comics are) Even urban dictionary doesn’t contain a definition for skub as a slur.

>Even urban dictionary doesn’t contain a definition for skub as a slur. What about this then: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/skub

That literally defines it as a word from the PBF comic I cited? Nothing on that page defines it as a slur, just as a word used to mock people who argue about inconsequential things.
Post reply on HN