371–380 of 455 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? What does DeepSeek say about Tiananmen Square? I'm not aware of any German models, but if you find one you should ask it what it thinks about Palestine. ( Qwen Mistral is French, but I have no idea what stuff would be censored in France)
> but if you find one you should ask it what it thinks about Palestine. Models can think and have opinions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to add any country to the list then? Did I miss anything? Let's see if we can push it past half of the world's population, but I don't think we will. > I can assure you in most parts using your thumb and index finger for a visual OK is not OK. You're moving goal posts. Of course it doesn't just mean "OK" in some places. What you actually claimed was "The OK gesture has always been very inappropriate in most part…
> I can assure you in most parts using your thumb and index finger for a visual OK is not OK. >>You're moving goal posts. Of course it doesn't mean "OK" in many I said the gesture is "not OK " to use (meaning inappropriate), not that it doesn’t mean "OK" . Those are two different things. The gesture can mean OK in some places while still being not OK (inappropriate) to use in many others. Also, I always said "parts o…
Fair. That's clearly how I should've read that.
Though it does not materially affect this conversation, since demonstrably there's over 4 billion people to whom the gesture is not inappropriate. The claim "[it] has always been very inappropriate in most parts of the world" is wrong, regardless of what reasonable definition of "most" you use.
You edited your comment to add this, so I'll respond here:
> Also, I always said "parts of the world". You introduced population into the argument.
Right. And you're being vague on how you actually arrive at your claim of "most", which conveniently keeps the waters muddy while you attack attempts to turn this into something measurable.
So what other measure would you use? Most others are nonsense.
For example "places" isn't a useful measure, but even then: It can only be offensive to people. If I dropped you on a random point on the globe and you made that gesture, there's about a 99% chance nobody would be around to be offended.
By land area and predominant culture? Just Antarctica (hardly anyone there to take offense), the US, China, Canada, Australia, and India together are going to dwarf the opposition.
Counting countries? It's clearly inappropriate in around 10, with about another 20-30 where it can be misunderstood easily (Arab world, some of eastern Europe, scattered ones). A far cry from ~195 countries.
Either way there needs to be someone to take offense, so population is a pretty good measure.
You may disagree, but the onus was always on you, the one making the claim, to pick a measure and a definition of "most", then show that the bar is met. Feel free to now make more of an argument than "trust me I traveled".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also a shining example of American puritanism. Asian models or those in Europe are far less censored.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's not suggested, the historic use of noa words is a fact. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noa-name
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what changed is that we at least can attempt to limit 'bad' things with technical measures. It was legitimately technically impossible 10 years ago to prevent Photoshop from designing propaganda posters. Of course today's 'LLM safety' features aren't watertight either, but with the combination of 'input is natural language' plus LLM-based safety measures, there are more options today to restrict what the soft…
In other words, to whatever extent they can control or manipulate the behavior of users, they will . In the limit t->∞, probably true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what changed is that we at least can attempt to limit 'bad' things with technical measures. It was legitimately technically impossible 10 years ago to prevent Photoshop from designing propaganda posters. Of course today's 'LLM safety' features aren't watertight either, but with the combination of 'input is natural language' plus LLM-based safety measures, there are more options today to restrict what the soft…
In other words, to whatever extent they can control or manipulate the behavior of users, they will . In the limit t->∞, probably true.
Perhaps a much more bleak take, depending on one's views :).
Aren't these [0] lines wrong? "[\\b\\d][Aa]bbo[\\bA-Z\\d]", \b inside a set (square brackets) is a backspace character [1], not a word boundary. I don't think it was intended? Or is the regex flavor used here different? [0] https://github.com/BlueFalconHD/apple_generative_model_safet... [1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/foundation/nsregul...
Wow, this is pretty silly. If things are like this at Apple I’m not sure what to think. https://github.com/BlueFalconHD/apple_generative_model_safet... EDIT: just to be clear, things like this are easily bypassed. “Boris Johnson”=>”B0ris Johnson” will skip right over the regex and will be recognized just fine by an LLM.
What prevents Apple from applying a quick anti-typo LLM which restores B0ris, unalive, fixs tpyos, and replaces "slumbering steed" with a "sleeping horse", not just for censorship, but also to improve generation results?
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…
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?