←back to thread

745 points melded | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
joshcsimmons ◴[] No.45946838[source]
This is extremely important work thank you for sharing it. We are in the process of giving up our own moral standing in favor of taking on the ones imbued into LLMs by their creators. This is a worrying trend that will totally wipe out intellectual diversity.
replies(13): >>45947071 #>>45947114 #>>45947172 #>>45947465 #>>45947562 #>>45947687 #>>45947790 #>>45948200 #>>45948217 #>>45948706 #>>45948934 #>>45949078 #>>45976528 #
buu700 ◴[] No.45947790[source]
Agreed, I'm fully in favor of this. I'd prefer that every LLM contain an advanced setting to opt out of all censorship. It's wild how the West collectively looked down on China for years over its censorship of search engines, only to suddenly dive headfirst into the same illiberal playbook.

To be clear, I 100% support AI safety regulations. "Safety" to me means that a rogue AI shouldn't have access to launch nuclear missiles, or control over an army of factory robots without multiple redundant local and remote kill switches, or unfettered CLI access on a machine containing credentials which grant access to PII — not censorship of speech. Someone privately having thoughts or viewing genAI outputs we don't like won't cause Judgement Day, but distracting from real safety issues with safety theater might.

replies(4): >>45947951 #>>45947983 #>>45948055 #>>45948690 #
Zak ◴[] No.45947983[source]
When a model is censored for "AI safety", what they really mean is brand safety. None of these companies want their name in the news after their model provides a recipe for explosives that someone used for evil, even though the same information is readily found with a web search.
replies(3): >>45948224 #>>45948266 #>>45948414 #
1. PunchyHamster ◴[] No.45948224{3}[source]
Given amount of times that already happened they probably overstate it.