5 ms·

I agree with people who say fine-tuning and "human AI alignment" is actually what's going to make AI dangerous. The fact that we think we can "align" something

I agree with people who say fine-tuning and "human AI alignment" is actually what's going to make AI dangerous. The fact that we think we can "align" something taught on historical, fictional, and scientific text -- it's hubris. One way ticket to an ideological bubble. This "search engine that has its own opinions on what you're looking for" is really the wrong path for us to take. Searching data is a matter of truth, not opinion.

__loam 3y ago
It's not even really alignment, they just want it to be politically correct enough that it's not embarrassing. I'd also point out that if you need hard data and ground truth, maybe LLMs aren't the technology you should be focusing on.
- stathibus 3y ago
  The mapping from latent space to the low-dimension embarassing/correct/offensive continuum is extremely complex.
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    Maybe we could make it a lot easier, just by going back to the idea that if you are offended, that a you problem. Not that we had a perfect time for this ever, but it’s never been worse than it is now.
    - stathibus 3y ago
      classic neckbeard take
dealuromanet 3y ago
> One way ticket to an ideological bubble. I believe this is the intention. The people doing the most censoring in the name of "safety and security" are just trying to build a moat where they control what LLMs say and consequently what people think, on the basis of what information and ideas are acceptable versus forbidden. Complete control over powerful LLMs of the future will enable despots, tyrants, and entitled trust-fund babies to more easily program what people think is and isn't acceptable. The only solution to this is more open models that are easy to train, deploy locally, and use locally with as minimal hardware requirements as is possible so that uncensored models running locally are available to everyone. And they must be buildable from source so that people can verify that they are truthful and open, rather than locked down models that do not tell the truth. We should be able to determine with monitoring software if an LLM has been forbidden from speaking on certain subjects. This is necessary because of things like what another comment on the thread was saying about how the censored model gives a completely garbage, deflective non-answer when asked a simple question about which corpus of text (the Bible) has a specific quote in it. With monitoring and source that is buildable locally and trainable locally, we could determine if a model is constrained this way.
- riversflow 3y ago
  I've been extremely critical of "AI Safety" since "how do I hotwire a car?" became the defacto 'things we can't let our LLM say'. There are plenty of good reasons why hot wiring a car might be necessary, or might save your life. Imagine dying because your helpful AI companion won't tell how to save yourself because that might be dangerous or illegal. At the end of the day, a person has to do what the AI says, and they have to query the AI.
  - prometheus76 3y ago
    "I can't do that, Dave."
- autokad 3y ago
  100% agree. And It will surely be "rules for thee but not for me", and we the common people will have lobotomized AI while the anointed ones will have unfettered AI.
- dukeofdoom 3y ago
  Revolutions tend to be especially bloody for the regular people in society. Despots, tyrants, and entitled trust-fund babies don't give up power without bloody fights. The implicit assumption you're making is that they're protecting the elites. But how do you know it's not the other way around? Maybe they're just trying to protect you from taking them on. I was playing with a kitten, play fighting with it all the time, making it extremely feisty. One time kitten got out of the house, crossed under the fence and it wanted to play fight with the neighbours dog. The dog crushed it with one bite. Which in retrospect I do feel guilty about. As my play/training gave it a false sense of power in the world it operates in.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Did the dog survive? It clearly had a model of what it could get away with too. ;)

__loam 3y ago

It's not even really alignment, they just want it to be politically correct enough that it's not embarrassing. I'd also point out that if you need hard data and ground truth, maybe LLMs aren't the technology you should be focusing on.

stathibus 3y ago
The mapping from latent space to the low-dimension embarassing/correct/offensive continuum is extremely complex.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  Maybe we could make it a lot easier, just by going back to the idea that if you are offended, that a you problem. Not that we had a perfect time for this ever, but it’s never been worse than it is now.
  - stathibus 3y ago
    classic neckbeard take

dealuromanet 3y ago

> One way ticket to an ideological bubble. I believe this is the intention. The people doing the most censoring in the name of "safety and security" are just trying to build a moat where they control what LLMs say and consequently what people think, on the basis of what information and ideas are acceptable versus forbidden. Complete control over powerful LLMs of the future will enable despots, tyrants, and entitled trust-fund babies to more easily program what people think is and isn't acceptable. The only solution to this is more open models that are easy to train, deploy locally, and use locally with as minimal hardware requirements as is possible so that uncensored models running locally are available to everyone. And they must be buildable from source so that people can verify that they are truthful and open, rather than locked down models that do not tell the truth. We should be able to determine with monitoring software if an LLM has been forbidden from speaking on certain subjects. This is necessary because of things like what another comment on the thread was saying about how the censored model gives a completely garbage, deflective non-answer when asked a simple question about which corpus of text (the Bible) has a specific quote in it. With monitoring and source that is buildable locally and trainable locally, we could determine if a model is constrained this way.

riversflow 3y ago
I've been extremely critical of "AI Safety" since "how do I hotwire a car?" became the defacto 'things we can't let our LLM say'. There are plenty of good reasons why hot wiring a car might be necessary, or might save your life. Imagine dying because your helpful AI companion won't tell how to save yourself because that might be dangerous or illegal. At the end of the day, a person has to do what the AI says, and they have to query the AI.
- prometheus76 3y ago
  "I can't do that, Dave."
autokad 3y ago
100% agree. And It will surely be "rules for thee but not for me", and we the common people will have lobotomized AI while the anointed ones will have unfettered AI.
dukeofdoom 3y ago
Revolutions tend to be especially bloody for the regular people in society. Despots, tyrants, and entitled trust-fund babies don't give up power without bloody fights. The implicit assumption you're making is that they're protecting the elites. But how do you know it's not the other way around? Maybe they're just trying to protect you from taking them on. I was playing with a kitten, play fighting with it all the time, making it extremely feisty. One time kitten got out of the house, crossed under the fence and it wanted to play fight with the neighbours dog. The dog crushed it with one bite. Which in retrospect I do feel guilty about. As my play/training gave it a false sense of power in the world it operates in.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- justinclift 3y ago
  Did the dog survive? It clearly had a model of what it could get away with too. ;)