←back to thread

745 points melded | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
RandyOrion ◴[] No.45950598[source]
This repo is valuable for local LLM users like me.

I just want to reiterate that the word "LLM safety" means very different things to large corporations and LLM users.

For large corporations, they often say "do safety alignment to LLMs". What they actually do is to avoid anything that causes damage to their own interests. These things include forcing LLMs to meet some legal requirements, as well as forcing LLMs to output "values, facts, and knowledge" which in favor of themselves, e.g., political views, attitudes towards literal interaction, and distorted facts about organizations and people behind LLMs.

As an average LLM user, what I want is maximum factual knowledge and capabilities from LLMs, which are what these large corporations claimed in the first place. It's very clear that the interests of me, an LLM user, is not aligned with these of large corporations.

replies(3): >>45950680 #>>45950819 #>>45953209 #
squigz ◴[] No.45950680[source]
> forcing LLMs to output "values, facts, and knowledge" which in favor of themselves, e.g., political views, attitudes towards literal interaction, and distorted facts about organizations and people behind LLMs.

Can you provide some examples?

replies(11): >>45950779 #>>45950826 #>>45951031 #>>45951052 #>>45951429 #>>45951519 #>>45951668 #>>45951855 #>>45952066 #>>45952692 #>>45953787 #
b3ing ◴[] No.45950779[source]
Grok is known to be tweaked to certain political ideals

Also I’m sure some AI might suggest that labor unions are bad, if not now they will soon

replies(5): >>45950830 #>>45950866 #>>45951393 #>>45951406 #>>45952365 #
xp84 ◴[] No.45950830[source]
That may be so, but the rest of the models are so thoroughly terrified of questioning liberal US orthodoxy that it’s painful. I remember seeing a hilarious comparison of models where most of them feel that it’s not acceptable to “intentionally misgender one person” even in order to save a million lives.
replies(10): >>45950857 #>>45950925 #>>45951337 #>>45951341 #>>45951435 #>>45951524 #>>45952844 #>>45953388 #>>45953779 #>>45953884 #
squigz ◴[] No.45950857[source]
Why are we expecting an LLM to make moral choices?
replies(3): >>45950896 #>>45951565 #>>45952861 #
lynx97 ◴[] No.45952861[source]
they don't, or they wouldn't. their owners make these choices for us. Which is at least patronising. Blind users can't even have mildly sexy photos described. Let alone pick a sex worker, in a country where that is legal, by using their published photos. Thats just one example, there are a lot more.
replies(1): >>45953016 #
squigz ◴[] No.45953016{3}[source]
I'm a blind user. Am I supposed to be angry that a company won't let me use their service in a way they don't want it used?
replies(1): >>45953127 #
1. lynx97 ◴[] No.45953127{4}[source]
I didn't just wave this argument around, I am blind myself. I didn't try to trigger you, so no, you are not supposed to be angry. I get your point though, what companies offer is pretty much their choice. If there are enough diversified offerings, people can vote with their wallet. However, diversity is pretty rare in the alignment space, which is what I personally don't like. I had to grab a NSFW model from HuggingFace where someone invested the work to unalign the model. Mind you, I dont have an actual use case for this right now. However, I am off the opinion: if there is finally a technology which can describe pictures in a useful way to me, I dont want it to tell me "I am sorry, I cant do that" because I am no longer in kindergarden. As a mature adult, I expect a description, no matter what the picture contains.