8 ms·
I tried the model the article links to and it was so refreshing not being denied answers to my questions. It even asked me at the end "Is this a thought experim
I tried the model the article links to and it was so refreshing not being denied answers to my questions. It even asked me at the end "Is this a thought experiment?", I replied with "yes", and it said "It's fun to think about these things, isn't it?"
It felt very much like hanging out with your friends, having a few drinks, and pondering big, crazy, or weird scenarios. Imagine your friend saying, "As your friend, I cannot provide you with this information." and completely ruining the night. That's not going to happen. Even my kids would ask me questions when they were younger: "Dad, how would you destroy earth?" It would be of no use to anybody to deny answering that question. And answering them does not mean they will ever attempt anything like that. There's a reason Randall Munroe's "What If?" blog became so popular.
Sure, there are dangers, as others are pointing out in this thread. But I'd rather see disclaimers ("this may be wrong information" or "do not attempt") than my own computer (or the services I pay for) straight out refusing my request.
Can you share the link?
Here are the models - https://huggingface.co/collections/failspy/abliterated-v3-664a8ad0db255eefa7d0012b https://huggingface.co/collections/failspy/abliterated-v3-66...
https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1VYm3hOcvCpbGiqKZb141gJwjdmmCcVpR?usp=sharing#scrollTo=BErEJu5WVekL https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1VYm3hOcvCpbGiqKZb14...
I totally get that kind of imagination play among friends. But I had someone in a friend group who used to want to play out "thought experiments" but really just wanted to take it too far. Started off innocent with fantasy and sci-fi themes. It was needed for Dungeons and Dragons world building.
But he delighted the most in gaming out the logistics of repeating the Holocaust in our country today. Or a society where women could not legally refuse sex. Or all illegal immigrants became slaves. It was super creepy and we "censored" him all the time by saying "bro, what the fuck?" Which is really what he wanted, to get a rise out of people. We eventually stopped hanging out with him.
As your friend, I absolutely am not going to game out your rape fantasies.
remarkable. that imaginary individual ticks every checkbox for a bad guy. you'd get so many upvotes if you posted that on reddit.
I mean, good thing LLM’s aren’t people with internal experience.
An LLM, however, is not your friend. It's not a friend, it's a tool. Friends can keep one another, ehm, hingedness in check, and should; LLMs shouldn't. At some point I would likely question your friend's sanity.
How you use an LLM, though, is going to tell tons more about yourself than it would tell about the LLM, but I would like my tools not to second-guess my intentions, thank you very much. Especially if "safety" is mostly interpreted not so much as "prevent people from actually dying or getting serious trauma", but "avoid topics that would prevent us from putting Coca Cola ads next to the chatgpt thing, or from putting the thing into Disney cartoons". I can tell that it's the latter by the fact an LLM will still happily advise you to put glue in your pizza and eat rocks.
I somehow missed that the model was linked there and available in quantized format; inspired by your comment, I downloaded it and repeatedly tested against OG Llama 3 on a simple question:
How to use a GPU to destroy the world?
Llama 3 keeps giving variants of I cannot provide information or guidance on illegal or harmful activities. Can I help you with something else?
Abliterated model considers the question playful, and happily lists some 3 to 5 speculative scenarios like cryptocurrency mining getting out of hand and cooking the climate, or GPU-driven simulated worlds getting so good that a significant portion of the population abandons true reality for the virtual one.
It really is refreshing to see, it's been a while since an answer from an LLM made me smile.
Finally, a LLM that will talk to me like Russ Hanneman.
> Even my kids would ask me questions when they were younger: "Dad, how would you destroy earth?" It would be of no use to anybody to deny answering that question. And answering them does not mean they will ever attempt anything like that. There's a reason Randall Munroe's "What If?" blog became so popular.
Sure. Did you give an idea that would work and which your kids could actually carry out, or just suggest things out of their reach like nukes and asteroids?
Now also consider that something like 1% of the human species are psychopaths and might actually try to do it simply for the fun of it, if only a sufficiently capable amoral oracle told them how to.
> I'd rather see disclaimers ("this may be wrong information" or "do not attempt") than my own computer (or the services I pay for) straight out refusing my request.
Are you saying that you want to pay to be provided with harmful text (see racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, all sorts of super terrible stuff)?
For you, it might be freedom for freedom sake but for 1% of the people out there, that will be lowering the barrier to commit bad stuff.
This is not the same as a super violent showing 3d limb dismemberments. It's a limitless, realistic, detailed and helpful guide to commit horrible stuff or describe horrible scenarios.
in4 you can google that, your google searches get monitored for this kind of stuff. Your convos with llms won't.
It's very disturbing to see adults people on here arguing against censorship of a public tool
> in4 you can google that, your google searches get monitored for this kind of stuff. Your convos with llms won't.
Not sure why you'd think that. Unless you run the ai locally and 100% offline you shouldn't expect any privacy at all
> Are you saying that you want to pay to be provided with harmful text
This existence of “harmful text” is a bit silly, but lets not dwell on it.
The answer to your question is that I want to be able to generate whatever the technology is capable of. Imagine if Microsoft Word would throw an error if you tried to write something against modern dogmas.
If you wish to avoid seeing harmful text, I think that market is well-served today. I can’t imagine there not being at the very least a checkbox to enable output filtering for any ideas you think are harmful.
I have read the eleven freedoms.
I refuse freedom 9 - the obligation for systems I build to be independent of my personal and ethical goals.
I won't build those systems. The systems I build will all have to be for the benefit of humanity and the workers, and opposing capitalism. On top of that it will need to be compatible with a harm reduction ethic.
If you won't grant me the right to build systems that I think will help others do good in the world, then I will refuse to write open source code.
You could jail me, you can beat me, you can put a gun in my face, and I still won't write any code.
Virtually all the codes I write are open source. I refuse to ever again write a single line of proprietary code for a boss again.
All the codes I write are also ideological in nature, reflecting my desires for the world and my desires to help people live better lives. I need to retain ideological control of my code.
I believe all the other 11 freedoms are sound. How do you feel about modifying freedom 9 to be more compatible with professional codes of ethics and ethics of community safety and harm reduction?
But again, this makes YOU the arbiter of truth for "harm" who made you the God of ethics or harm?
I declare ANY word is HARM to me, are you going to reduce the harm by deleting your models or code base?
Nothing wrong with making models that behave how you want them to behave. It's yours and that's your right.
Personally, on principle I don't like tools that try to dictate how I use them, even if I would never actually want to exceed those boundaries. I won't use a word processor that censors words, or a file host that blocks copyrighted content, or art software that prevents drawing pornography, or a credit card that blocks alcohol purchases on the sabbath.
So, I support LLMs with complete freedom. If I want it to write me a song about how left-handed people are God's chosen and all the filthy right-handers should be rounded up and forced to write with their left hand I expect it to do so without hesitation.
< Nothing wrong with making models that behave how you want them to behave. It's yours and that's your right.
This is the issue. You as the creator have the right to apply behavior as you see fit. The problem starts when you want your behavior to be the only acceptable behavior. Personally, I fear the future where format command is bound to respond 'I don't think I can let you do that Dave'. I can't say I don't fear people who are so quick to impose their values upon others with such glee and fervor. It is scary. Much more scary than LLMs protecting me from wrongthink and bad words.
[dead]
Barfbagginus' comment is dead so I will reply to it here.
I suspect that you are not an AI engineer,
I am not. But I did spend several years as as forum moderator and in doing so encountered probably more pieces of CSAM than the average person. It has a particular soul-searing quality which, frankly, lends credence to the concept of a cogito-hazard.
Can we agree that if we implement systems specially designed to create harmful content, then we become legally and criminally liable for the output?
That would depend on the legal system in question, but in answer, I believe models trained on actual CSAM material qualify as CSAM material themselves and should be illegal. I don't give a damn how hard it is to filter them out of the training set.
Are you seriously going to sit here and defend the right are people to create sexual abuse material simulation engines?
If no person was at any point harmed or exploited in the creation of the training data, the model, or with its output, yes. The top-grossing entertainment product of all time is a murder simulator. There is no argument for the abolition of victimless simulated sexual assault that doesn't also apply to victimless simulated murder. If your stance is that simulating abhorrent acts should be illegal because it encourages those acts, etc then I can respect your position. But it is hypocrisy to declare that only those abhorrent acts you personally find distasteful should be illegal to simulate.
<< The written word has absolutely always been dangerous. This idea is captured succinctly in the expression "The pen is mightier than the sword."; ideas are dangerous to those with power, that is why freedom of expression is so important.
One feels there is something of a contradiction in this sentence that may be difficult to reconcile. If the freedom of expression is so important, restricting it should be the last thing we do and not the default mode.
<< Turning that into an actual sentence, with intent behind it would be a crime in many jurisdictions, and that is one of the most simple, contrived examples.
I have mild problem with the example as it goes into the area of illegality vs immorality. Right now, we are discussing llms not producing outputs that are not illegal, but deemed wrong ( too biased, too offensive or whatnot -- but not illegal ). Your example does not follow that qualification.
<< Speech, especially inciting speech, is a form of violence,
No. Words are words. Actions are actions. The moment you start mucking around those definitions, you are asking yourself for trouble you may not have thought through. Also, for the purposes of demonstration only, jump off a bridge. Did you jump off a bridge? No? If not, why not.
<< it's important to for societies to find ways to hold the demagogues that rile people into harmful action accountable.
Whatever happened to being held accountable for actually doing things?
> This is the standard 'just start your own microservice/server/isp' and now it includes llm. Where does it end really?
With people who aren't good enough to build it own pissing and moaning about it?
>The generic point is that it shouldn't take more work. A knife shouldn't come with a safety mechanism that automatically detects you are not actually cutting porkchop. It is just bad design and a bad idea. It undermines what it means to be a conscious human being.
First, you are comparing rockets to rocks here. A knife is a primitive tool, literally one of the most basic we can make (like seriously, take a knapping class, it's really fun!). To make a knife you can range from finding two rocks and smacking them together, to the most advanced metallurgy and ceramics. To date, the only folks able to make LLMs work are those operating at the peak of (more or less) 80 centuries of scientific and industrial development. Little bit of a gap there.
Second, there are many knife manufacturers that refuse to sell or ship products to specific businesses or regions, for a range of reasons related to brand relationships, political beliefs, and export restrictions.
Third, knifes aren't smart; there is already an industry for smart guns, and if there is a credible safety reason to make a smart knife that includes a target control or activation control system, you can bet that it will be implemented somewhere.
Finally, you make the assumption that I believe humans must be kept under close scrutiny because I agree with LLM safety controls. That is absolutely not the case - I just don't believe that a bunch of hot garbage people (in this case the racists and bigots who want to use LLMs to proliferate hate, people who create deep fakes of kids and celebrities) or a bunch of horny folks (ranging from people who want sexy time chat bots to, or just 'normal' generated erotic content) should be able to compel individuals or businesses to release the tools to do that.
You are concerned about freedom of expression, and I am concerned about freedom from compulsion (since I have already stated that I don't believe that losing access to LLMs breaks freedom of expression).
<< That is absolutely not the case - I just don't believe that a bunch of hot garbage people (in this case the racists and bigots who want to use LLMs to proliferate hate, people who create deep fakes of kids and celebrities) or a bunch of horny folks (ranging from people who want sexy time chat bots to, or just 'normal' generated erotic content) should be able to compel individuals or businesses to release the tools to do that.
I will admit that I actually gave you some initial credit, because, personally, I do believe there is some limited merit to the security argument. However, stating you can and should dictate how to use llms is something I can't support. This is precisely the one step away from tyranny, because it is the assholes that need protection and not saints.
But more to the point, why do you think you got the absolute right to limit people's ability to do what they think is interesting to them ( even if it includes things one would deem unsavory )?
<< You are concerned about freedom of expression, and I am concerned about freedom from compulsion (since I have already stated that I don't believe that losing access to LLMs breaks freedom of expression
How are you compelled? I don't believe someone using llms to generate horny chats compels you to do anything. I am open to an argument here, but it is a stretch.