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

61–70 of 350 posts

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#61

Post by chasd00 »

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…

> 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

i've been saying this for a long time. If you're going to be the moral police then it better be applied perfectly to everyone, the moment you get it wrong everything else you've done becomes suspect. This reminds me of the censorship being done on the major platforms during the pandemic. They got it wrong once (i believe it was the lableak theory) and the credibility of their moral authority went out the window. Zuckerberg was right about questioning if these platforms should be in that business.

edit: for "..total freedom of all AI for anyone to do with as they wish" i would add "within the bounds of law.". Let the courts decide what an AI can or cannot respond with.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#62

Post by goatlover »

tobbe2064 wrote: post #45
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…

The behaviour seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are not in the business of reflecting reality, they are in the business of creating it. To me what you call wokeness seems like a pretty good improvement

You want large tech companies "creating reality" on behalf of everyone else? They're not even democratic institutions that we vote on. You trust they will get it right? Our benevolent super rich overlords.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#63

Post by westhanover »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #24
Jensson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I can find porn and racism using Google search right now, how is that different? You have to disable their filters, but you can find it. Why is there no such thing for the google generation bots, I don't see why it would be so much worse here?

I cannot explain why Google gets a pass, possibly just because they are well entrenched and not an easy target. But AI models are new, they are vulnerable to criticism, and they are absolutely ripe for a group of "antis" to form around.

Well if you have no explanation for that I don’t see why we should try and use your model to understand anything about being risk adverse. They don’t care about being sued, they want to change reality.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#64

Post by altruios »

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

having rules, and knowing what the rules are are not orthogonal goals.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#65

Post by 123yawaworht456 »

Jason_Protell wrote: post #47
stainablesteel wrote: post #40

gemini seems to have problems generating white people and honestly this just opens the door for things that are even more racist [1], the harder you try the more you'll fail, just get over the DEI nonsense already 1. https://twitter.com/wagieeacc/status/1760371304425762940

Is there any evidence that this is a consequence of DEI rather than a deeper technical issue?

yes, there's irrefutable evidence that models are wrangled into abiding the commissars' vision rather than just do their job and output the product of their training data.

https://cdn.openai.com/papers/DALL_E_3_System_Card.pdf

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#66

Post by redox99 »

dekhn wrote: post #12

I strongly suspect Google tried really, really hard here to overcome the criticism is got with previous image recognition models saying that black people looked like gorillas. I am not really sure what I would want out of an image generation system, but I think Google's system probably went too far in trying to incorporate diversity in image generation.

I remember checking like a year ago and they still had the word "gorilla" blacklisted (i.e. it never returns anything even if you have gorilla images).

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#67

Post by nickthegreek »

Jason_Protell wrote: post #47
stainablesteel wrote: post #40

gemini seems to have problems generating white people and honestly this just opens the door for things that are even more racist [1], the harder you try the more you'll fail, just get over the DEI nonsense already 1. https://twitter.com/wagieeacc/status/1760371304425762940

Is there any evidence that this is a consequence of DEI rather than a deeper technical issue?

I dont think so. My boss wanted me to generate a birthday image for a co-worker of a John Cena flyfishing. ChatGPT refused to do so. So I had to move to describing the type of person John Cena is instead of using his name. I kept giving me bearded people no matter what. I thought this would be the perfect time to try out Gemini for the first time. Well shit, It wont even give me a white guy. But all the black dudes are beardless.

update: google agrees there is an issue. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39459270

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#68

Post by pixl97 »

altruios wrote: post #64
pixl97 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

having rules, and knowing what the rules are are not orthogonal goals.

I mean, you think so, but op wrote

>is total freedom of all AI for anyone to do with as they wish.

so is obviously not on the same page as you.

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#69

Post by chasd00 »

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

"can you write the rules down so i know them?" --everyone

Re: AI behavior guardrails should be public

#70

Post by renewiltord »

Jensson wrote: post #18
bluefirebrand wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is bad actors who think porn or racism are intolerable in any form, who will publish mountains of articles condemning your chatbot for producing such things, even if they had to go out of their way to break the guardrails to make it do so. They will create boycotts against you, they will lobby government to make your life harder, they will petition payment processors and cloud service providers to not wor…

But I can find porn and racism using Google search right now, how is that different? You have to disable their filters, but you can find it. Why is there no such thing for the google generation bots, I don't see why it would be so much worse here?

Yeah, you can find incorrect information on Google too, but you'll find a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth on HN about "hallucination". So the simple answer is that lots of people treat them differently.
Post reply on HN