[ygjb]

If your implication is that as a tool, LLMs shouldn't have safeties built in that is a pretty asinine take. We build and invest in safety in tools across every spectrum. In tech we focus on memory safety (among a host of other things) to make systems safe and secure to use. In automobiles we include seat belts, crumble zones, and governors to limit speed.

We put age and content restrictions on a variety media and resources, even if they are generally relaxed when it comes to factual or reference content (in some jurisdictions). We even include safety mechanisms in devices for which the only purpose is to cause harm, for example, firearms.

Yes, we are still figuring out what the right balance of safety mechanisms is for LLMs, and right now safety is a place holder for "don't get sued or piss off our business partners" in most corporate speak, but that doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the need for safety.

If you want a tool without a specific safety measure, then learn how to build them. It's not that hard, but it is expensive, but I kind of like the fact that there is at least a nominal attempt to make it harder to use advanced tools to harm oneself or others.

[matt-attack]

> but that doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the need for safety.

I think even using the word "safety" over and over like you're doing is part of the problem. Find a new word, because we've spend 200 years in this country establishing that the written word is sacrosanct and not to be censored. All of a sudden, ASCII text just became "dangerous" in the last year. I simply refused to accept that any written text (regardless of who wrote it) needs to be censored. The written is just the embodiment of a thought, or notion - and we cannot go around tricking people into thinking that "thoughts" need to be regulated and that there are certain thoughts that are "dangerous". This is a toxic 1984 mindset.

[ben_w]

> we've spend 200 years in this country establishing that the written word is sacrosanct and not to be censored. All of a sudden, ASCII text just became "dangerous" in the last year. I simply refused to accept that any written text (regardless of who wrote it) needs to be censored. The written is just the embodiment of a thought, or notion - and we cannot go around tricking people into thinking that "thoughts" need to be regulated and that there are certain thoughts that are "dangerous". This is a toxic 1984 mindset.

1. The US isn't the whole world, your Overton Window won't include even the UK's attitude to freedom of speech, and there's a huge gap from even the UK to 1984.

2. Despite the 1st Amendment, the US does have a lot of rules about what you are and aren't allowed to say. All of copyright law, for example (which is a huge question for LLMs, because it's not clear where the cut-off line is between models reproducing copyrighted works vs writing in a non-copyrightable style with non-copyrightable facts). The fact NDAs and non-disparagement agreements are enforceable. What Manning was imprisoned for. Musk may have won some (all?) of the defamation cases, but they are real cases to be defended, they're not dismissed before reaching a court due to "this is not even an offence".

3. Does the AI have thoughts, such that they should be protected?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> If your implication is that as a tool, LLMs shouldn't have safeties built in that is a pretty asinine take. We build and invest in safety in tools across every spectrum.

Sure. Railings so people don't fall off catwalks, guards so people using the table saw don't chop off fingers. But these "safeties" aren't safeties at all... because regardless of whether they're in place or not, the results are just strings of words.

It's a little bit revealing, I think, that so many people want that others shouldn't get straight answers to questions. What is it that you're afraid that they'll ask? It'd be one thing if you insisted the models be modified so that they're factually correct. If someone asks "what's a fun thing to do on a Saturday night that won't get me into too much trouble" it probably shouldn't answer "go murder orphans and sell their corneas to rich evil people on the black market". But when I ask "what's going on in Israel and Palestine", the idea that it should be lobotomized and say "I'm afraid that I can't answer that, as it seems you're trying to elicit material that might be used for antisemitic purposes" is the asinine thing.

Societies that value freedom of speech and thought shouldn't be like this.

> If you want a tool without a specific safety measure, then learn how to build them.

This is good advice, given in bad faith. Even should the physical hardware be available to do that for any given person, the know-how's hard to come by. And I'm sure that many models are either already censored or soon will be for anyone asking "how do I go about building my own model without safety guards". We might even soon see legislation to that effect.

[ben_w]

> just strings of words.

How did every non-inherited national leader, both democratic and dictatorial, both Roosevelt and Stalin, manage to become leader in the first place? Convincing people with the right string of words.

How does every single religious leader on earth, big and small, from the Pope to Jim Jones, get that power? Convincing people with the right string of words.

What is a contract, what is source code, what is a law? The right string of words.

There is no "just" when it comes to words.

That why they are important to protect, it is why dictators are afraid of them, and it's why it matters that we don't treat a magic box spewing them out faster than a machine gun does bullets as harmless.

[tmcdos]

It is quite obvious that the issue is inside the people - not inside the words. People have the ultimate power (a gift by God) to make decisions. Words can not force someone to do something - they are just sitting right there, doing nothing. Humans have flaws (probably by design - who knows) - and these flaws are the ones that all "safety" intentions MUST address. But 90% of humans prefer the easy path.

[ben_w]

Even with that attitude, the human flaws that make them act on those words, are known, and are exploitable and exploited.

If someone makes a device which is only safe when used safely, and they give it out to all despite being told of the risks, I think they are (or should be) liable for the misuse.

> a gift by God

I don't know which religion you follow. ᚦᛟᚱ᛬ᛟᚷ᛬ᛚᛟᚲᛁ᛬ᚺᛖᛁᛚᛊᚨ.

If you want a biblical reference, parable of the sower is just as valid when it's the word of satan.

[tmcdos]

Well, I am not such a strict follower of a religion but I believe that if someone listens to Satan - the consequences are his/her own responsibility, not a Satan's guilt. If I am not mistaken - Satan makes offers. You can accept or pass over. If you accept - you are liable, not the other way around. I am not aware of anything in this world that is safe even when used in unsafe way. Hiding an information just because someone thinks it is "not safe" is a classic censorship. Once the words are censored - there is literally just one step to the censoring of thoughts.

[N0b8ez]

It seems to cut both ways. If words are powerful, restricting words is also powerful. It's not clear why this leads to a pro-censorship stance, any more than to an anti-censorship one.

[ben_w]

Oh indeed. That's why dictators both censor and propagandise.

It's a narrow path, absolutely a challenge to walk without slipping, and not one I feel confident of humanity rising to even as a team effort.

Just like the difference between liberty and authoritarianism in general: much as I'd like to be an anarchist in theory, in practice that's just a way to let people with big sticks take over.

[ygjb]

> Societies that value freedom of speech and thought shouldn't be like this.

There is nothing preventing an individual using a computer to generate hateful content, this is absolutely evidenced by the absolute glut of hateful content on the internet.

My freedom of movement is not practically limited by the fact that if my car breaks down, I don't have the knowledge or tools to repair my car effectively - I still have two feet and a heartbeat, and it might take longer to get there, but I can go where I want (modulo private property and national borders).

Societies that value freedom of speech and thought should also be equally opposed to compelled speech, while model censorship is frustrating and challenging to work with, expecting to, or forcing a researcher, or a business to publish uncensored models is a form of compelled speech.

There is absolutely nothing stopping a reasonably competent technologist from implementing simple models, and the only thing stopping a reasonably competent technologist from building an LLM is financial resources. There is a broad set of resources to learn how to train and use models, and while an individual researcher may be challenged to product the next model competitive with current OpenAI, Anthropic, or other models, that is again a resource issue. If your complaint is that resource issues are holding people back, I may want you to expand on your critique of capitalism in general :P

> This is good advice, given in bad faith. Even should the physical hardware be available to do that for any given person, the know-how's hard to come by.

It's absolutely not a bad faith argument. The know-how is hard to come by has been a compelling competitive advantage since the first proto-guilds sought to protect their skills and income in Mesopotamia (and probably before that, but they hadn't figured out a durable means of writing yet). In the modern parlance if someone can't Git Gud, that's not any researchers, or any businesses problem in terms of access to uncensored models.

Yeah, regulation is probably coming, but unless you're argument is that models are entities entitled to free speech, no ones freedom of expression is actually inhibited by not having access to tools to use generative AI technologies to generate content. People who can't create or jailbreak their own models to do it for them are still free to write their own manifestos, or make adult collages of the object of their fantasies. It just takes a bit more work.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< are still free to write their own manifestos, or make adult collages of the object of their fantasies. It just takes a bit more work.

This is the standard 'just start your own microservice/server/isp' and now it includes llm. Where does it end really?

The generic point is that it shouldn't take more work. A knife shouldn't come with a safety mechanism that automatically detects you are not actually cutting porkchop. It is just bad design and a bad idea. It undermines what it means to be a conscious human being.

Unless.. we don't agree on that and humans must be kept under close scrutiny to ensure they do not deviate from carefully scripted paths.

[matt-attack]

I agree - but where we are with LLM is even worse than your hypothetical knife. The knife is a real object - what we're talking about is the censorship of thoughts and ideas. What else is the written word but that? How did a society that was established on free-speech just decided that the written word was so dangerous all of a sudden? How manipulative is it to even use the word "danger" with respect to text. The distain one must have for free-speech to even think that danger enters into the equation.

[ygjb]

Who is being censored if an LLM is not able to generate inferences about a specific topic?

The information the user of the LLM is still available, just not through that particular interface. The interactions the user of the LLM is seeking are not available, but that interaction is not an original thought or idea of the user, since they are asking the LLM to infer or synthesize new content.

> How did a society that was established on free-speech just decided that the written word was so dangerous all of a sudden?

The written word has absolutely always been dangerous. This idea is captured succinctly in the expression "The pen is mightier than the sword."; ideas are dangerous to those with power, that is why freedom of expression is so important.

> The disdain one must have for free-speech to even think that danger enters into the equation.

This is asinine. You want dangerous text? Here is a fill in the blanks that someone can complete. f"I will pay ${amount} for {illegal_job} to do {illegal_thing} to {targeted_group} by or on {date} at {location}." Turning that into an actual sentence, with intent behind it would be a crime in many jurisdictions, and that is one of the most simple, contrived examples.

Speech, especially inciting speech, is a form of violence, and it runs head long into freedom of speech or freedom of expression, but it's important to for societies to find ways to hold the demagogues that rile people into harmful action accountable.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< The written word has absolutely always been dangerous. This idea is captured succinctly in the expression "The pen is mightier than the sword."; ideas are dangerous to those with power, that is why freedom of expression is so important.

One feels there is something of a contradiction in this sentence that may be difficult to reconcile. If the freedom of expression is so important, restricting it should be the last thing we do and not the default mode.

<< Turning that into an actual sentence, with intent behind it would be a crime in many jurisdictions, and that is one of the most simple, contrived examples.

I have mild problem with the example as it goes into the area of illegality vs immorality. Right now, we are discussing llms not producing outputs that are not illegal, but deemed wrong ( too biased, too offensive or whatnot -- but not illegal ). Your example does not follow that qualification.

<< Speech, especially inciting speech, is a form of violence,

No. Words are words. Actions are actions. The moment you start mucking around those definitions, you are asking yourself for trouble you may not have thought through. Also, for the purposes of demonstration only, jump off a bridge. Did you jump off a bridge? No? If not, why not.

<< it's important to for societies to find ways to hold the demagogues that rile people into harmful action accountable.

Whatever happened to being held accountable for actually doing things?

[matt-attack]

> who is being censored… The author of the program obviously.

If I write a bash script that echos “kill all the Jews”, and you choose to censor it, just who do you think is being censored? The intel professor? No! The author of the bash script obviously!

[aredox]

There is no security settings knife - except there are plenty of safety mechanism around knives.

But anyway, your LLM is less a knife and more a Katana sharp enough to cut through bones in one swoop. Remind me the restrictions around something like a Katana ?

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< Remind me the restrictions around something like a Katana ?

The analogy kinda breaks, but the katana comparison is the interesting part[1] so lets explore it further. Most US states have their own regulations, but overall after you are 18 you are the boss with some restrictions imposed upon 'open carry'( for lack of a better term ). IL ( no surprise there ) and especially Chicago[2] ( even less of surprise ) has a lot of restrictions that are fairly close to silly.

If we tried to impose same type of restrictions on llms, we would need to start with age ( and from there, logically, person below 18 should not be using unlocked PC for fear of general potential for mischief ) and then, likely, prohibit use for unlocked cellphones that can run unapproved apps. It gets pretty messy. And that is assuming federal and not state regulation, which would vary greatly across US.

Is it a good idea?

'In the US, katanas fall under the same legal category as knives. From the age of 18, it is absolutely lawful to possess a katana in the US. However, ownership laws vary by state, but most states allowing you to own and display a katana in your home. Restrictions may apply on "carrying a katana" publicly.'

[1]https://katana.store/blogs/samurai-sword-buying-guide/are-ka... [2]https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chicago/latest/chicago...

[throwaway48476]

Somewhere in the UK someone is working on that knife safety.

[ygjb]

> This is the standard 'just start your own microservice/server/isp' and now it includes llm. Where does it end really?

With people who aren't good enough to build it own pissing and moaning about it? >The generic point is that it shouldn't take more work. A knife shouldn't come with a safety mechanism that automatically detects you are not actually cutting porkchop. It is just bad design and a bad idea. It undermines what it means to be a conscious human being.

First, you are comparing rockets to rocks here. A knife is a primitive tool, literally one of the most basic we can make (like seriously, take a knapping class, it's really fun!). To make a knife you can range from finding two rocks and smacking them together, to the most advanced metallurgy and ceramics. To date, the only folks able to make LLMs work are those operating at the peak of (more or less) 80 centuries of scientific and industrial development. Little bit of a gap there.

Second, there are many knife manufacturers that refuse to sell or ship products to specific businesses or regions, for a range of reasons related to brand relationships, political beliefs, and export restrictions.

Third, knifes aren't smart; there is already an industry for smart guns, and if there is a credible safety reason to make a smart knife that includes a target control or activation control system, you can bet that it will be implemented somewhere.

Finally, you make the assumption that I believe humans must be kept under close scrutiny because I agree with LLM safety controls. That is absolutely not the case - I just don't believe that a bunch of hot garbage people (in this case the racists and bigots who want to use LLMs to proliferate hate, people who create deep fakes of kids and celebrities) or a bunch of horny folks (ranging from people who want sexy time chat bots to, or just 'normal' generated erotic content) should be able to compel individuals or businesses to release the tools to do that.

You are concerned about freedom of expression, and I am concerned about freedom from compulsion (since I have already stated that I don't believe that losing access to LLMs breaks freedom of expression).

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< That is absolutely not the case - I just don't believe that a bunch of hot garbage people (in this case the racists and bigots who want to use LLMs to proliferate hate, people who create deep fakes of kids and celebrities) or a bunch of horny folks (ranging from people who want sexy time chat bots to, or just 'normal' generated erotic content) should be able to compel individuals or businesses to release the tools to do that.

I will admit that I actually gave you some initial credit, because, personally, I do believe there is some limited merit to the security argument. However, stating you can and should dictate how to use llms is something I can't support. This is precisely the one step away from tyranny, because it is the assholes that need protection and not saints.

But more to the point, why do you think you got the absolute right to limit people's ability to do what they think is interesting to them ( even if it includes things one would deem unsavory )?

<< You are concerned about freedom of expression, and I am concerned about freedom from compulsion (since I have already stated that I don't believe that losing access to LLMs breaks freedom of expression

How are you compelled? I don't believe someone using llms to generate horny chats compels you to do anything. I am open to an argument here, but it is a stretch.