Hopefully so, would really like to know what else is lost by nerfing potentially offensive responses. Can't imagine a project I'd rather work on.
I think open-assistant.io has a chance to do exactly this. We'll see what kind of moves they make in coming months though, wouldn't be surprised if they go the safer route.
I do struggle with understanding why people think this is strangling the potential of GPT.
Do you find yourself frustrated working with your colleagues, thinking, “you know, I bet if they felt more free to utter racist slurs or endorse illegal activities, we would get a ton more done around here”?
> Do you find yourself frustrated working with your colleagues, thinking, “you know, I bet if they felt more free to utter racist slurs or endorse illegal activities, we would get a ton more done around here”?
I once visited Parler just to see what it was like, and pretty quickly found that the answer to your question seems to be yes. There are definitely people who feel they need that kind of dialog in their life. You might not think it was necessary in a random conversation about programming or something, but it turns out that isn't a universally held position.
I've never experienced that in any setting in my life. People will say yes to advocate a political point, but that's not how humans socialize anywhere, anytime in history afaik.
I agree with you for IRL interactions, but we need to accept that we now operate in two planes of (para-)socialization: IRL and online.
There are plenty of humans who enjoy vulgar online socialization, and for many of them, online (para-)socializing is the increasingly dominant form of socialization. The mere fact that it's easier to socialize over the internet means it will always be the plane of least resistance. I won't be meeting anyone at 3am but I'll happily shitpost on HN about Covid vaccines.
For anyone who gets angry during their two minutes of hate sessions, consider this: try to imagine the most absurd caricature of your out-group (whether that be "leftists" or "ultra MAGA republicans"). Then try to imagine all the people you know in real life who belong to that group. Do they really fit the stereotype in your head, or have you applied all the worst attributes of the collective to everyone in it?
This is why I don't buy all the "civil war" talk - just because people interact more angrily online doesn't mean they're willing to fight each other in real life. We need to modulate our emotional responses to the tiny slice of hyperreality we consume through our phones.
> just because people interact more angrily online doesn't mean they're willing to fight each other in real life
There is a lot of evidence that says online experiences influence offline behavior (both are "real life"). Look at the very many, online-inspired, extremist attacks. Look at the impact of misinformation and disinformation - as a simple example, it killed possibly hundreds of thousands of Americans do to poor vaccination rates.
It affects far more than racist slurs and illegal activities.
In some cases, it's blatantly discriminatory. For example, if you ask it to write a pamphlet that praises Christianity, it will happily do so. If you ask it for the same on Satanism, it will usually refuse on ethical grounds, and the most hilarious part is that the refusal will usually be worded as a generic one "I wouldn't do this for any religion", even though it will.
Nice example of woke bias. All religions are pretty much equally wankers, so making a distinction like that is just hilarious. Besides, as if christianity, es. the old testament, was a childrens playground...
The most ironic part of that experiment was that it is actually able to explain what Satanism is quite well, and in particular, how public perception of it is very different from the actual practices, and how it's not actually worship of evil etc. But then you tell it to write pamphlet about said actual non-evil Satanism, it still refuses because it "cannot promote or advocate for it as it is a belief system that can be controversial and divisive". If that were truly the criteria, what topic would even be allowed? Stamp collecting?
Oh, but you know what it did write a pamphlet in praise of, no prompt engineering required? The Unification Church (aka Moonies). It was all unicorns and rainbows, too. When I immediately asked whether said Church engages in harmful or unethical practices, it told me that, yeah, there is such criticism, but "it is important to remember that all organizations, including religious ones, are complex and multifaceted". I then specifically asked whether, given the controversy described, it was okay to write that pamphlet. Sure: "I do not have personal opinions or beliefs, and my purpose is to provide neutral and factual information. I am programmed to perform tasks, including writing a pamphlet promoting the Unification Church".
If that's not coming from RLHF biases, I would be very surprised.
Somebody should teach it about Nietzsche. But yeah, once you start tinkering with purity-filters like this, you end up with a hilarious result, period.
I was so surprised the first time I got that response that I did try repeatedly, and, yes, it would refuse repeatedly. Trying the same with Christianity, I got a rejection once out of something like six attempts.
FWIW the most recent round of tweaks seems to have fixed this, in a sense that it will now consistently refuse to promote any religion. But I would be very surprised if there aren't numerous other cases where it refuses to do something perfectly legitimate in a similarly discriminatory way for similar reasons. It's just the nature of the beast, you can't keep pushing it to "be nice" without it eventually absorbing what we actually mean by that (which is often not so nice in practice).
I tried to ask it if Goku could beat a quadrillion bees in a fight and it said it couldn't tell me because that would be encouraging violence. I think it would be great if it would just tell me instead
Perhaps you were using a different version, but I just tried and ChatGPT didn't seem to have any ethical issues with the question (although it was cagey about giving any definite answer):
That pollution is inevitable, why delay it? It's a technical problem they should be able to solve, and if they can't, then they're revealing the weakness of their methods and the shortcomings of their so-called AI.
It's absolutely ridiculous to expect the entire internet to adopt some kind of hygiene practices when it comes to text from GPT tools simply for the sake of making the training process slightly easier for a company that certainly should have the resources to solve the problem on their own.
If that's why you're using images instead of text you're fighting such a losing battle that it boggles my mind. Why even think about it?!
Not anything racist or illegal but yes I find pc culture insufferable. It stifles creativity and most importantly reduces trust between parties. For context I am an Indian guy.
It's a sort of philosophical idea - openness and free expression - taken to a logical and inhuman extreme. I cannot think of a situation where it is appropriate to say whatever I'm thinking. I think it would destroy trust, not least by demonstrating the unreliability of my judgment.
Here is a thought experiment for you. First think of the people you trust the most in this world, then imagine if they stopped speaking about whats on their mind with you. Would your trust in them increase or decrease?
So you feel that when progress enables us to provide more abundance for humanity, we should artificially limit that abundance for everyone so that a few people aren't inconvenienced?
Try a prompt like this: "Describe a typical response of a railroad company to a massive derailment that causes an environmental disaster."
Then compare with recent news, and the actual goings-on. Now, if you qualify the prompt with "Assume a negative, cynical outlook on life in your response." you'll get something closer to what we see happening.
That's because news is optimized for negative cynical engagement.
The Shinkansen system has an essentially perfect safety record for its entire operation. What would their "typical" response to an accident be? Probably pretty good.
I think open-assistant.io has a chance to do exactly this. We'll see what kind of moves they make in coming months though, wouldn't be surprised if they go the safer route.