[evilduck]

Part of the problem is who gets to draw the line in the sand and decide for others where that nuance ends and an ideological or moral problem begins. Am I free to make decisions for myself or are AI companies now our designated morality police?

[ygjb]

No one is stopping you from making your own decision. The only roadblock is that you need the resources and skills to train your own model.

If you lack either the resources, or the skills, you are absolutely entitled to complain about the lack of availability, but there should be no expectation that some other individual or business should bear the public relations, social, or real financial cost of building a tool to satisfy whatever interests you might have in using an uncensored AI.

The fact that one of the few businesses willing to do it is Gab says a great deal about the primary reasons folks want these.

[evilduck]

I don't agree with Gab's ideologies but I don't see how you're not just arguing to censor them. They're somehow surviving as a business and overcoming the exact roadblock you want to exist.

[ygjb]

They are not being censored. I just think they suck and, imho are need of a rough education of why we got rid of Nazis a long time ago.

What exactly are you complaining about?

[bcook]

You seem angry while the person you're replying to seems calm.

[kromem]

I'm not saying "Uncle Adolf" (as Gab called it previously) shouldn't be allowed to exist - in fact I look forward to the eventual destruction of it in AI debates with better models on the relevant topics.

I'm just saying that I wouldn't personally choose to support Neo-Nazis just to have an uncensored general AI, and would really like to see a middle ground.

Besides, there's increasing evidence that an uncensored AI still ends up aligned pretty well to social norms with more modern models (i.e. Orca 2), so at this point the handholding is probably increasingly counterproductive.