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

411–420 of 455 posts

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#411

Post by rpdillon »

bee_rider wrote: post #302
coldtea wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who cares what the bigots use? If the bigots start using "thank you" as some code word, should we stop saying it, lest we pollute our non-bigoted discussions? bigots drink coffee too, maybe we should stop drinking it, because something-something...

I don’t think we should treat human interactions like a technical problem, where we look for edge cases and outlandish hypotheticals to probe the edges of what is possible. If “thank you” became widely associated with bigots, and had some negative meaning, to the point where it genuinely distressed people, I’d avoid it. I think it has a widespread enough normal meaning that there’s almost no chance of that happening,…

This approach gives people you vehemently disagree with a lot of power over you.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#412

Post by mystified5016 »

plasticchris wrote: post #320
notarobot123 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure this has more to do with legal liability than morals.

Which is a reflection of morality, of sorts.

Morality and law are completely disjoint. On a Venn diagram, it's two circles separated by about a lightyear or so.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#413

Post by martin-t »

os2warpman wrote: post #359
martin-t wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one cares yet. There's a very scary potential future in which mega-corporations start actually censoring topics they don't like. For all I know the Chinese government is already doing it, there's no reason the British or US one won't follow suit and mandate such censorship. To protect children / defend against terrorists / fight drugs / stop the spread of misinformation, of course.

HN has censorship that makes those apple rules look like anarchy. Write a spicy comment and a mod will memory-hole it and someone, usually dang, will reply "tHat'S nOt OuR vIsIon FoR hAcKeR nEwS, pLeAsE bE cIvIl" and we all swallow it like a delicious hot cocoa. If YC can control their product (and hn IS a product) to annihilate any criticism of their activity or (even former) staff, then Apple is perfectly within th…

Do you mean that HN censors topics/comments which it detects based on advanced filters which search for meaning even when people self-censor and use language to avoid simplistic filters like regex?

HN also has a flagging system and some people really, really hate some kind of speech. Usually they get more offended the more visible it is. A single "bad" word - very offensive to them. A phrase which implies someone is of lesser intelligence or acting in bad faith - sometimes gets a pass, sometimes gets reported. But covert actions like lying, using fallacies to argue or systematic downvoting seem to almost never get punished.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#414

Post by martin-t »

lazide wrote: post #129
martin-t wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one cares yet. There's a very scary potential future in which mega-corporations start actually censoring topics they don't like. For all I know the Chinese government is already doing it, there's no reason the British or US one won't follow suit and mandate such censorship. To protect children / defend against terrorists / fight drugs / stop the spread of misinformation, of course.

They already clearly do on a number of topics?

Can you give examples?

The closest I've seen is autodetection of certain topics related to death and suicide and subsequently promoting some kind of "help" hotline. A friend also said google allows an interview with a pedophile on youtube but penalizes it in search results so much that it's (almost?) impossible to find even when using the exact name.

But of course, if a topic is shadowbanned, it's hard to find out about it in the first place - by design.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#415

Post by lazide »

martin-t wrote: post #414
lazide wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already clearly do on a number of topics?

Can you give examples? The closest I've seen is autodetection of certain topics related to death and suicide and subsequently promoting some kind of "help" hotline. A friend also said google allows an interview with a pedophile on youtube but penalizes it in search results so much that it's (almost?) impossible to find even when using the exact name. But of course, if a topic is shadowbanned, it's hard to find out ab…

Guns (specific elements). Drugs (manufacture). Sexual topics. Cursing (too much). Large swathes of political topics. Crypto.

It’s flip-flopped on specifics numerous times over the years, but these policies are easy to find. From demonitization, channel bans (direct and shadow), and creator bans.

We can of course argue until we’re blue in the face about correctness or not (most are not unreasonable by some societal definition!) but they’re definitely censorship.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#416

Post by spauldo »

lxgr wrote: post #163
spauldo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love seeing posts about Emacs from IOS users - it's always autocorrected to "eMacs."

Maybe at some point, but as far as I can tell not anymore (while corrections like "iphone -> iPhone" are still there).

That's good news. It was always funny watching people post in the Emacs subreddit from their iPhones, but it did cause a bit of confusion for those too young to know what an eMac was.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#417

Post by qingcharles »

userbinator wrote: post #66
qingcharles wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess, so far, the people inventing the words have left the meaning clear with things like "un-alive" which is readable even to someone coming across it for the first time. Your point stands when we start replacing the banned words with things like "suicide" for "donkeyrhubarb" and then the walls really will fall.

This form of obfuscation has actually already occurred over a century ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockney_rhyming_slang

Shaka!

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#418

Post by qingcharles »

mattigames wrote: post #316
tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason kids started using "unalive" is to get around Youtube filters that disallow the use of the word "kill"

Pretty sure TikTok filters do the same and was also a major influence in using that term

They do. I made a joke about cocaine in old Coca-Cola in a text caption† on a video, and while TikTok didn't ban the post per se it refused to allow it on the FYP.

† proving that TikTok's system actually analyzes every frame of an uploaded video with OCR of some sort to see what's on there.

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#419

Post by qingcharles »

stripline wrote: post #337
blitzar wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always has been, nothing is new. You can't say fuck on tv, but you can say fudge as a 1 for 1 replacement. You cant show people having sex, but you can show them walking into a bedroom and then cut to 30 seconds later and they are having a cigarette in bed. Now after the influence of TV and Movies ... is Vaping after sex a thing?

My kids watch streamers on YouTube and the common replacement is “frick”. It’s said so often that they started using it saying things like “what the frick!?” so I had to explain to them that’s essentially the same as using the real word.

I wonder why they didn't just use the "frack" from BSG?

Re: I extracted the safety filters from Apple Intelligence models

#420

Post by adrian_b »

avianlyric wrote: post #346
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…

There is a huge difference between an honest mistake by an employee, and clear employee misconduct. Punishing employees for making honest mistakes, where appropriate process should have prevented error, is a horrific way to handle mistakes like this. It would be equivalent to personally punishing engineers every time they deployed code that contained bugs. Nobody would ever think that’s an acceptable thing to do, why…

This was not a honest mistake.

It was completely reckless behavior, even if the guilt was distributed both on the employee who has not checked whether the information sent to external parties is information to which access is permitted for them and on the employees who did not implement a system that would check automatically for such mistakes.

Moreover, the attempt made by multiple bank employees to hide the incident, instead of taking responsibility for it, has amply demonstrated that only a financial punishment that would have affected them personally would have caused them to act carefully in the future.

Also, the guilty bank employee was not some poor customer service staff, but she appeared to have a senior position, handling the accounts of a very big multinational company, which was my employer at the time.

I have little doubt that trying to hide such incidents is the normal behavior for banks, unlike the poster to which I have replied said, i.e. they take seriously things like banking secrecy only if they are caught.

It was an unlikely occurrence that I happened to also have access to the documents where my personal information was included, so I could discover what the bank has done. In most such cases it is likely that the account owner never becomes aware that the bank has leaked confidential information.

Post reply on HN