←back to thread

586 points mizzao | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.247s | source
Show context
rivo ◴[] No.40668263[source]
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.

replies(6): >>40668938 #>>40669291 #>>40669447 #>>40671323 #>>40683221 #>>40689216 #
Cheer2171 ◴[] No.40668938[source]
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.

replies(11): >>40669105 #>>40669505 #>>40670433 #>>40670603 #>>40671661 #>>40671746 #>>40672676 #>>40673052 #>>40678557 #>>40679712 #>>40679816 #
chasd00 ◴[] No.40671661[source]
i probably wouldn't want to be around him either but i don't think he deserves to be placed on an island unreachable by anyone on the planet.
replies(2): >>40676766 #>>40689278 #
sangnoir ◴[] No.40676766[source]
...but can you game out how one might achieve this in way that the victim won't immediately die, and the organizers are not criminally liable? As a thought experiment, of course.
replies(1): >>40681069 #
matt-attack ◴[] No.40681069[source]
Yes. We should absolutely censor thoughts, and certain conversations. Free speech be damned - some thoughts are just so abhorrent we just shouldn't allow people to have them.
replies(2): >>40683283 #>>40687023 #
sangnoir ◴[] No.40687023[source]
Rebuking, shunning and ostracism are key levers for societal self-regulation, and social cohesion. Pick any society, at any point in time, amd you will find people/ideas that were rejected for not confirming enough.

There are limits to free speech even in friendship or families- there are things that even your closest friends can say that will make you not want to associate with them anymore.

replies(1): >>40688074 #
matt-attack ◴[] No.40688074[source]
Well, the arguments out there aren’t that LLM’s are too brash, or discourteous or, insensitive. People are saying they’re “dangerous”. None of your examples speak to danger. No one is censored for being insensitive, or impolite or an opportune or discourteous. I totally support society regulating those things, and even outcastIng individuals who violate social norms. But that’s not what the anti-LLM language is framed as. It’s saying it’s “dangerous “. That’s a whole different ballgame, and I fail to see how such a description could ever apply. We need to stop that kind of language. It’s pure 1984 bullshit.
replies(2): >>40688994 #>>40692496 #
1. sangnoir ◴[] No.40692496[source]
> Well, the arguments out there aren’t that LLM’s are too brash, or discourteous or, insensitive. People are saying they’re “dangerous”.

I didn't say that...

> None of your examples speak to danger.

Why should they have supported an argument I didn't make.

My comment is anti-anti-censorship of LLM. People already self-censor a lot; "reading the room" is huge part of being a functional member of society, and expecting LLMs to embody the "no-filter, inappropriate jerk" personality is what's against the grain - not the opposite.

I'm pragmatic enough to know the reason corporate LLMs "censor" is their inability to read the room, so they default to the lowest common factor and be inoffensive all the time (which has no brand risk), rather than allowing for the possibility the LLM offends $PROTECTED_CLASS, which can damage their brand or be legally perilous. That juice is not worth the squeeze just to make a vocal subset of nerd happy; all the better if those nerds fine-tune/abliterate public models so the corps can wash their hands of any responsibility of the modified versions.