321–330 of 339 posts
1. A 200k context is bittersweet with that 70k->195k error rate jump. Kudos on that midsection error reduction, though! 2. I wish Claude had fewer refusals (as erroneously claimed in the title). Until Anthropic stops heavily censoring Claude, the model is borderline useless. I just don't have time, energy, or inclination to fight my tools. I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. Until Anthropic stops…
Claude refuses a lot. GPT4 also refuses a lot and one has to try several prompts to get out what you need. LLMs are trained on the entire internet and more. I want a model that just gives me the answer with whatever it knows instead of playing pseudoethics. Sure it can say this is dangerous “don’t do this at home” but let me be the judge of it.
To be honest, what they view as ethical is actually unethical: this idea that the AI knows more than a human, in the human's situation, and can pass judgment on that human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. This is the key. The only sensible model of "alignment" is "model is aligned to the user", not e.g. "model is aligned to corporation" or "model is aligned to woke sensibilities".
Anthropic specifically says on their website, "AI research and products that put safety at the frontier" and that they are a company focused on the enterprise. But you ignore all of that and still expect them to alienate their primary customer and instead build something just for you.
With some model (not relevant which one, might or might not be Anthropic's), we got safety-limited after asking the "weight of an object" because of fat shaming (i.e. woke sensibilities).
That's just absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is very unlikely that the development team will be able to build features that actually cause the model to act in the best interests of humanity on every inference. What is far more likely is that the development team will build a model that often mistakes legitimate use for nefarious intent while at the same time failing to prevent a tenacious nefarious user from getting the model to do what they want.
I think the current level of caution in LLMs is pretty silly: while there are a few things I really don't want LLMs doing (telling people how to make pandemics is a big one) I don't think keeping people from learning how to hotwire a car (where the first google result is https://www.wikihow.com/Hotwire-a-Car ) is worth the collateral censorship. One thing that has me a bit nervous about current approaches to "AI safe…
Another time I tried to let it generate a very specific Sci-fi helmet which covers the nose but not the mouth. When it continusly left the nose visible, I tried to tell it to make this particular section similar to Robocop, which caused it again to deny to render because it was immediately concerned about copyright. While I at least partially understand the concern for the last request, this all adds up to making this software very frustrating to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve had some really absurd ChatGPT refusals. I wanted some invalid UTF-8 strings, and ChatGPT was utterly convinced that this was against its alignment and refused (politely) to help.
That's not absurd, you absolutely don't want invalid strings being created within then passed between layers of a text-parsing model. I don't know what would happen but I doubt it would be ideal. 'hey ai, can you crash yourself' lol
But I didn’t ask for that at all. I asked for a sequence of bytes (like “0xff” etc) or a C string that was not valid as UTF-8. I have no idea whether ChatGPT is capable of computing such a thing, but it was not willing to try for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not absurd, you absolutely don't want invalid strings being created within then passed between layers of a text-parsing model. I don't know what would happen but I doubt it would be ideal. 'hey ai, can you crash yourself' lol
Huh? The LLMs (mostly) use strings of tokens internally, not bytes that might be invalid UTF-8. (And they use vectors between layers. There’s no “invalid” in this sense.) But I didn’t ask for that at all. I asked for a sequence of bytes (like “0xff” etc) or a C string that was not valid as UTF-8. I have no idea whether ChatGPT is capable of computing such a thing, but it was not willing to try for me.
I don’t like Anthropic. they over-RLHF their models and make them refuse most requests. A conversation with Claude has never been pleasant to me. it feels like the model has an attitude or something.
It's awful. 9/10 of things I ask Claud, I get denied because it crosses some kind of imaginary ethical boundary that's completely irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I decide how to use my tools, not the other way 'round. This is the key. The only sensible model of "alignment" is "model is aligned to the user", not e.g. "model is aligned to corporation" or "model is aligned to woke sensibilities".
Anthropic specifically says on their website, "AI research and products that put safety at the frontier" and that they are a company focused on the enterprise. But you ignore all of that and still expect them to alienate their primary customer and instead build something just for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a subscriber, and personally I think it provides results closer to what I am looking for than gpt4.
That’s hard to believe but I’m open to the possibility. Cam you share a few examples that might demonstrate this?