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

AI behavior guardrails should be public

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 350 posts

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#291

Post by kaesar14 »

pixl97 wrote: post #43
kaesar14 wrote: post #3

Curious to see if this thread gets flagged and shut down like the others. Shame, too, since I feel like all the Gemini stuff that’s gone down today is so important to talk about when we consider AI safety. This has convinced me more and more that the only possible way forward that’s not a dystopian hellscape is total freedom of all AI for anyone to do with as they wish. Anything else is forcing values on other people…

"The only way to deal with some people making crazy rules is to have no rules at all" --libertarians "Oh my god I'm being eaten by a fucking bear" --also libertarians

I find it fascinating this type of response from people is always accompanied by a political label in order to insinuate some other negative baggage.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#292

Post by pizzafeelsright »

Ecoste wrote: post #200
serial_dev wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no need to implement large scale censorship and moderation in this case. Where is the security concern? That I can generate images of white people in various situations for my five minutes of entertainment? The whole premise of your argument doesn't make sense. I'm talking to a computer, nobody gets hurt. It's like censoring what I write in my notes app vs. what I write on someone's Facebook wall. In one cas…

But what if little timmy asks it how to make a bomb? What if it's racist? Then what?

It's fine. We have laws against blowing people up.

Racism is fine as well. I won't date out of my race and if you think there should be a law that I must that's not really freedom. As for hiring or not based upon race there's already a law against that.

The cure is often worse than navigating uneasy waters. Every time you pass a law you give a gun to a bureaucrat.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#293

Post by photonthug »

jjjjj55555 wrote: post #284
felipeerias wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies systematically push US cultural beliefs and expectations. People in the US probably don’t notice it any more, but it’s pretty obvious from those of us on the receiving end of US cultural domination. This fact is an unavoidable consequence of the socioeconomic realities of the world, but it obviously clashes with these companies’ public statements and positions.

Yes but it's especially cynical in this case because the belief their pushing is that diversity matters, that biases need to be overcome, and that all people need to be represented. Claiming all of that but then shoving your own biases down the rest of the world's throat while not representing their people in any way is especially cynical in my opinion. It undermines the whole thing.

Hypocrisy is an especially destructive kind of betrayal, which is why the crooked cop or the pedo priest are so disappointing. Would be nice if companies would merely exploit us without all the extra insult of telling us they are changing the world / it’s for our own good / it’s what we asked for/, etc

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#294

Post by lp0_on_fire »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #270
UberFly wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A word blocklist just serves to apply guardrails. It just slows down common abuse. Very far from perfect, but the alternatives are anything goes or total lockdown. Perfect solutions are pretty damn rare.

You mention "solutions" Perhaps you mistake me for someone who cares about suggesting solutions for the prolems suffered by giant technopolies, as if they were my problems.

This is basically my view. These tech companies have produced some pretty amazing stuff. Solved problems and built things at scale that were unthinkable a decade ago.

They can solve this problem. They choose not to because a) they're already shielded from legal liability for certain things that happen/are said on their platforms and b) it doesn't make them any money.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#295

Post by lamontcg »

advael wrote: post #259
lamontcg wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean people can get through your front door using any number of attacks that either exploit weaknesses in the locking mechanism, or circumvent your locks via a carefully placed brick through a window or something like that. Even if you have alarms and other measures, that doesn't stop someone from doing a quick smash and grab, etc. All of these security flaws doesn't mean that you should leave your door open and un…

Your analogy is also bad. I agree that perfect security is impossible and that is completely irrelevant here. What platforms like this do by not publishing their policies is more akin to insisting you use their special locks on your door that they claim protect you better because no one knows how they work. Maybe they're operated by an AI working with a Ring camera or something? Very fancy stuff. With this kind of te…

> They may get you arrested for trying to get into your own home

The AI algorithms that ban people from platforms like Google and GitHub do that, which I explicitly called out as needing more oversight.

That is different from algorithms which just prevent you from doing something on a platform like using n-bombs in your username, or the LLM guardrails that just give you mangled answers or tell you that they can't do that. That isn't analogous to getting arrested.

And in these cases the analogy really falls apart because it isn't your home, and it isn't critical for your life.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#297

Post by advael »

lamontcg wrote: post #295
advael wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy is also bad. I agree that perfect security is impossible and that is completely irrelevant here. What platforms like this do by not publishing their policies is more akin to insisting you use their special locks on your door that they claim protect you better because no one knows how they work. Maybe they're operated by an AI working with a Ring camera or something? Very fancy stuff. With this kind of te…

> They may get you arrested for trying to get into your own home The AI algorithms that ban people from platforms like Google and GitHub do that, which I explicitly called out as needing more oversight. That is different from algorithms which just prevent you from doing something on a platform like using n-bombs in your username, or the LLM guardrails that just give you mangled answers or tell you that they can't do…

Friend, it was your analogy

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#298

Post by ramblingrain »

noworriesnate wrote: post #289
jjjjj55555 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity is cool, but who gets to decide what's diverse?

Good point. People of European descent have more diversity in hair color, hair texture and eye color than any other race. That’s because a lot of those traits are recessive and are only expressed in isolated gene pools (European peoples are an isolated gene pool in this sense).

Isn't this like the exact opposite of the conclusions of the HapMap project?

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#299

Post by philwelch »

jjjjj55555 wrote: post #284
felipeerias wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US companies systematically push US cultural beliefs and expectations. People in the US probably don’t notice it any more, but it’s pretty obvious from those of us on the receiving end of US cultural domination. This fact is an unavoidable consequence of the socioeconomic realities of the world, but it obviously clashes with these companies’ public statements and positions.

Yes but it's especially cynical in this case because the belief their pushing is that diversity matters, that biases need to be overcome, and that all people need to be represented. Claiming all of that but then shoving your own biases down the rest of the world's throat while not representing their people in any way is especially cynical in my opinion. It undermines the whole thing.

This is the exact same mindset that invented the word “Latinx”. Compress most of an entire hemisphere of ethnic and cultural diversity down to the vague concept of “Latino”, notice that Spanish is a gendered language so the word “Latino” is also gendered, completely forget that you already have the gender neutral English word “Latin”, invent a new word that virtually none of the people to whom it applies actually identifies with, and then shamelessly use it all the time.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#300

Post by mplewis »

photoGrant wrote: post #37
Workaccount2 wrote: post #34

Harris and who I think was either Hughes or Stewart a podcast where they talked about how cringey and out of touch the elite are on the topic of race or wokeness in general. This faux pas on google's part couldn't be a better illustration of this. A bunch of wealthy rich tech geeks programming an AI to show racial diversity in what were/are unambiguously not diverse settings. They're just so painfully divorced from r…

Watch your opinion on this get silenced in subtle ways. From gaslighting to thread nerfing to vote locking.... Ask why anyone would engage in those behaviours vs the merit of the arguments and the voice of the people. The strings are revealing themselves so incredibly fast. edit: my first flagged! silence is deafening ^_^. This is achieved by nerfing the thread from public view, then allow the truly caustic to alter…

Log off and go outside for a bit.
Post reply on HN