7 ms·

The fact that it doesn’t explain its reasoning at all (there is no way to make it do so), makes me question the utility of this model. Let’s say you deploy it

by hchja 2mo ago

The fact that it doesn’t explain its reasoning at all (there is no way to make it do so), makes me question the utility of this model. Let’s say you deploy it in production and a user comes back and says “Why is this prompt considered harmful?” You have no way to provide a concrete reason to the user at that point.

xp84 2mo ago
That’s like 2006 reasoning. An end user contacting someone who cares and has an intention to explain why it happened. 2016 scenario: An end user contacts the company, and a customer service rep answers the ticket, saying they’re sorry and explaining that they’ve sent the feedback to the team, and the team may even receive at least a summary of complaints received about the system. 2026 scenario: all contact information has been scrubbed from the site. Users can click “chat” and a chatbot will apologize for their dissatisfaction and offer no option to escalate. No one will ever hear anything about the complaint, so there’s no need to explain the failure. User can either accept this or can get f**ked because all competitors operate the same way.
- nextaccountic 2mo ago
  Not all platforms want to operate like mainstream social media though
- maigret 2mo ago
  In Germany you are obligated to provide usable contact information, and there are even lawyers who make their business model on suing you for not applying that perfectly (it’s has been abused a lot in the past decades btw).
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    What about in France?
- tomjen3 1mo ago
  This model is European. There are quite a lot of instances where under GDPR, you have the right to have incorrect information about you corrected. I also think you have the right to appeal a decision to a human (I got that message from Reddit once, because the bot could not understand the difference between discussion of the death penalty and threats to humans). There are also new rules about AI and what it can be used for. Mostly this restricts the government from AI-enhanced surveillance, which is good. But there are also issues regarding job security and automatically categorizing people based on AI. So this is super useful, but has potential issues depending on how it is deployed.
blackqueeriroh 2mo ago
Yeah, you do. You go and review it manually if the user comes back and says that. The reality is that most users don’t ask because they know they violated the rule.
Ukv 1mo ago
> You have no way to provide a concrete reason to the user at that point. You should just be able to look at the user's message and tell them why it's against your policy, else reverse the decision if you see no violation. If a user is curious specifically about how the model made its decision, and you want to reveal detail at that level, it's an open-weights model so interpretability techniques should work ("biggest impact on score came when focusing on this word in your message and this part of the policy").

by hchja 2mo ago

xp84 2mo ago

That’s like 2006 reasoning. An end user contacting someone who cares and has an intention to explain why it happened. 2016 scenario: An end user contacts the company, and a customer service rep answers the ticket, saying they’re sorry and explaining that they’ve sent the feedback to the team, and the team may even receive at least a summary of complaints received about the system. 2026 scenario: all contact information has been scrubbed from the site. Users can click “chat” and a chatbot will apologize for their dissatisfaction and offer no option to escalate. No one will ever hear anything about the complaint, so there’s no need to explain the failure. User can either accept this or can get f**ked because all competitors operate the same way.

nextaccountic 2mo ago
Not all platforms want to operate like mainstream social media though
maigret 2mo ago
In Germany you are obligated to provide usable contact information, and there are even lawyers who make their business model on suing you for not applying that perfectly (it’s has been abused a lot in the past decades btw).
- inigyou 2mo ago
  What about in France?
tomjen3 1mo ago
This model is European. There are quite a lot of instances where under GDPR, you have the right to have incorrect information about you corrected. I also think you have the right to appeal a decision to a human (I got that message from Reddit once, because the bot could not understand the difference between discussion of the death penalty and threats to humans). There are also new rules about AI and what it can be used for. Mostly this restricts the government from AI-enhanced surveillance, which is good. But there are also issues regarding job security and automatically categorizing people based on AI. So this is super useful, but has potential issues depending on how it is deployed.

blackqueeriroh 2mo ago

Yeah, you do. You go and review it manually if the user comes back and says that. The reality is that most users don’t ask because they know they violated the rule.

Ukv 1mo ago

> You have no way to provide a concrete reason to the user at that point. You should just be able to look at the user's message and tell them why it's against your policy, else reverse the decision if you see no violation. If a user is curious specifically about how the model made its decision, and you want to reveal detail at that level, it's an open-weights model so interpretability techniques should work ("biggest impact on score came when focusing on this word in your message and this part of the policy").