| > 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). |
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.