[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]

Thank you. Very well put!

I don’t care what is considered illegal in certain jurisdictions. That’s off topic. Sodomy is illegal in certain jurisdictions. Are you going to try to convince me that I should give two shits about what two or three or four people choose to stick in what hole in the privacy of their homes? We’re taking about this insidious language of LLMs being “dangerous”.

If an LLM printed the text written by the GP about funding a hit, I fail to see how even that is “dangerous”.

I can write a bash script right now that prints that same thing, and I can post it to GitHub. Is anyone going to give two shits about it?

Someone has to explain how an LLM producing that same text is any different than my bash script printing to STDOUT. There’s not fucking difference. A program printed some text and there’s no argument behind the case that it’s dangerous.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< I don’t care what is considered illegal in certain jurisdictions.

I think this is where it gets messy. I care what happens in my jurisdiction, because this is where the laws I am subject to are enforced. The part that aggravates me is that the llms are purposefully neutered in stupid ways that are not even trying to enforce laws, but rather current weird zeitgeist that has somehow been deemed appropriate to be promoted by platforms.

<< A program printed some text and there’s no argument behind the case that it’s dangerous.

As I mentioned in my previous posts, I accept some level of argumentation from security standpoint ( I suppose those could be argued to be dangerous ), but touching touchy topics is not that.

At the end of the day, I will say that this censorship in itself is dangerous. Do you know why? When I was a little boy, I learned of censorship relatively late, because it was subtle ( overt restriction on what you could read and write typically indicated useful information and was sought after ). It didn't make censorship less insidious, but at least it didn't immediately radicalize a lot of people. This 'I am afraid I can't let you do that Dave' message I get from censored llm is that overt censorship that is already backfiring from that perspective.

<< Someone has to explain how an LLM producing that same text is any different than my bash script printing to STDOUT.

The only real difference is that it has more complex internals and therefore its outputs are more flexible than most programs. The end result is the same ('text on screen'), but how it gets there is different. Good bash script will give you the information needed as long as it is coded right; it is a purpose built tool. LLMs, OTOH, are a software equivalent of personal computer idea.

ok. i think i need coffee

[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!