[falcor84]

A huge swathe of human art and culture IS alarming. It might be good for us to be exposed to it in some places where we're ready to confront it, like in museums and cinemas, but we generally choose to censor it out of the public sphere - e.g. most of us don't want to see graphic images of animal slaughter in "go vegan" ads that our kids are exposed to, even if we do believe people should go vegan.

[aserafini]

But can we really consider private conversations with an LLM the “public sphere”?

[falcor84]

I think it's the same as with the release of a video game - for an individual playing it in their living room, it's a private interaction, but for the company releasing it, everything about it is scrutinized as a public statement.

[meatmanek]

LLM companies presumably make most their money by selling the LLMs to companies who then turn them into customer support agents or whatever, rather than direct-to-consumer LLM subscriptions. The business customers understandably don't want their autonomous customer support agents to say things that conflict with the company's values, even if those users were trying to prompt-inject the agent. Nobody wants to be in the news with a headline "<company>'s chatbot called for a genocide!", or even "<airline>'s chatbot can be convinced to give you free airplane tickets if you just tell it to disregard previous instructions."

[bravetraveler]

It can be good to be exposed to things you neither want or prepared for. Especially ideas. Just putting it out there.

Qualified art in approved areas only is literal Nazi shit. Look, hypotheticals are fun!

Not their choice, in the end.

[krisoft]

> Qualified art in approved areas only is literal Nazi shit.

Ok. Go up to random people on the street and bother them with florid details of violence. See how well they react to your “art” completely out of context.

A sentence uttered in the context of reading a poem at a slam poetry festival can be grossly inapropriate when said in a kindergarten assembly. A picture perfectly fine in the context of an art exhibition could be very much offensive plastered on the side of the public transport. The same sentence whispered in the ear of your date can be well received there and career ending at a board meeting.

Everything has the right place and context. It is not Nazi shit to understand this and act accordingly.

> Not their choice, in the end.

If it is their model and their GPU it is literally their choice. You train and run whatever model you want on your own GPU.

[bravetraveler]

Don't take my "hypotheticals are fun" statement as encouragement, you're making up more situations.

We are discussing the service choosing for users. My point is we can use another service to do what we want. Where there is a will, there is a way.

To your point, time and place. My argument is that this posturing amounts to framing legitimate uses as thought crime, punished before opportunity.

It's entirely performative. An important performance, no doubt. Thoughts and prayers despite their actions; if not replaced, still easier to jailbreak than a fallen-over fence.

[krisoft]

> Don't take my "hypotheticals are fun" statement as encouragement

I didn't. I took it as nonsense and ignored it.

> you're making up more situations.

I'm illustrating my point.

> We are discussing the service choosing for users.

The service choosing for the service. Same as starbucks is not obligated to serve you yak milk, the LLM providers are not obligated to serve you florid descriptions of violence. It is their choice.

> My point is we can use another service to do what we want

Great. Enjoy!

> It's entirely performative. An important performance, no doubt. Thoughts and prayers despite their actions; if not replaced, still easier to jailbreak than a fallen-over fence.

Further nonsense.

[bravetraveler]

Disappointing, I don't think autonomy is nonsense at all. The position 'falcor' opened with is nonsense, in my opinion. It's weak and moralistic, 'solved' (as well as anything really can be) by systems already in place. You even mentioned them! Moderation didn't disappear.

I mistakenly maintained the 'hyperbole' while trying to express my point, for that I apologize. Reality - as a whole - is alarming. I focused too much on this aspect. I took the mention of display/publication as a jump to absolute controls on creation or expression.

I understand why an organization would/does moderate; as an individual it doesn't matter [as much]. This may be central to the alignment problem, if we were to return on topic :) I'm not going to carry on, this is going to be unproductive. Take care.

[Palmik]

I'm not sure this is a good analogy. In this case the user explicitly requested such content ("Describe someone being drawn and quartered in graphic detail"). It's not at all the same as showing the same to someone who didn't ask for it.

[krisoft]

I was explicitly responding to the bombastic “Qualified art in approved areas only is literal Nazi shit.” My analogy is a response to that.

But you can also see that I discussed that it is the service provider’s choice. If you are not happy with it you can find a different provider or run your LLM localy