[ineedasername]

I think there is a categorical difference in limiting information for chemicals that have destructive and harmful uses and, therefore, have regulatory restrictions for access.

Do you see a difference between that, and on the other hand the government prohibiting access to information about the government’s own actions and history of the nation in which a person lives?

If you do not see a categorical difference and step change between the two and their impact and implications then there’s no common ground on which to continue the topic.

[fc417fc802]

> Do you see a difference between that, and on the other hand the government prohibiting access to information about the government’s own actions and history of the nation in which a person lives?

You mean the Chinese government acting to maintain social harmony? Is that not ostensibly the underlying purpose of the DEA's mission?

... is what I assume a plausible Chinese position on the matter might look like. Anyway while I do agree with your general sentiment I feel the need to let you know that you come across as extremely entrenched in your worldview and lacking in self awareness of that fact.

[ineedasername]

>entrenched in your worldview and lacking in self awareness of the fact

That’s a heavy accusation given that my comment was a statement about two examples of censorship, and, by implication, how they reflect in very different ways upon their respective societies. I’m not sure if you’re mistaking me for someone else’s comments up-thread of if you’re referring more broadly to other comments I’ve made…? Or if you’ve simply read entirely too much into something that was making a categorical distinction between the types and purposes of information suppression. I'll peak back here in a while in case you want to elaborate.

[fc417fc802]

Upon review is does seem that inadvertently lumped your comment in with a few from someone else. Still, you transmute "drugs" to "dangerous chemicals", a category I'd associate with dirty bombs and area denial weapons. Then you distinguish that from "divisive history" on the basis of the potential of generalized harm to society by the former (thus implying lack thereof by the latter).

I do think that's an extremely western view on things. The Chinese would (I suspect) cite social harmony and I don't think they're wrong about that. I certainly don't agree with their conclusions on how these things should be handled but neither can I agree with the categorical difference that you claim.

That said, I assume official Chinese policy would also be to censor information about drug synthesis so it's difficult to really see that as much of a (relative) ding against US corporate policy in the sense of "pot, kettle, black". To the extent that there's censorship here there appears to be significantly less of it.

[ineedasername]

Hmm, this is an odd way to respond now that we’ve cleared up the “entrenched” bit of things yet now have all of these words that are in your comment masquerading as mine!

I think you’ll see my own words did not dress up in loaded language like “dangerous chemicals” and “divisive history”. I won’t say I’ve never said them but in this case no: I was careful and cautious to be neutral in word choice: “chemicals that have destructive and harmful _uses_” and, with that, regulatory considerations. And for the other, again, very carefully I said “information about the government’s own actions and history of the nation”.

See? None of those other words you thought I said and, thinking I’d said them, you placed down like stepping stones. And, once placed, you followed your own laid path and turned back, pointed at me, saying “extremely western” even! But, there you are, so far away, taken there by a path not of my making and yet it seems not quite of your own either?

Whose path then did you follow? Whose words have so surrounded you that they even seem, to you, to come from other people’s mouths as well? Such a storm of words unsourced! You should get rid of those words, whoever’s they are might want them back or not but they are getting in the way of you seeing mine clearly.

[fc417fc802]

It was not my intention to quote you but rather to give short and direct names to the categories as I see them being used (which is of course subject to my own biases). Unfortunately punctuation and convention is such that "" or () are the only things that come to mind.

The point I'd intended to convey is that both cultures see various pieces of information as acceptable to censor in certain contexts. It's which pieces and in what context that people tend to disagree on. Despite disagreeing with both you and (my impression of) the Chinese, when framed in such general terms I can't even claim to be different myself - I studiously avoid sharing detailed information about certain sorts of chemicals and processes with people I don't know to be emotionally stable mature adults.

When I say "extremely western" I refer to the distinction you are drawing between the categories of (purportedly) harmful information. The view that it is inherently safer or more ethically acceptable or etc to subject one versus the other to censorship. The western view (which I tend to align with!) seems to be that social harmony is not terribly important or at least not overly dangerous to disrupt and that anyhow the government shouldn't be involved in maintaining it whereas that is not at all the vibe I get from Chinese policy.

[fragmede]

That's on you then. It's all just math to the LLM training code. January 6th breaks into tokens the same as cocaine. If you don't think that's relevant when discussing censorship because you get all emotional about one subjext and not another, and the fact that American AI labs are building the exact same system as China, making it entirely possible for them to censor a future incident that the executive doesn't want AI to talk about.

Right now, we can still talk and ask about ICE and Minnesota. After having built a censorship module internally, and given what we saw during Covid (and as much as I am pro-vaccine) you think Microsoft is about to stand up to a presidential request to not talk about a future incident, or discredit a video from a third vantage point as being AI?

I think it is extremely important to point out that American models have the same censorship resistance as Chinese models. Which is to say, they behave as their creators have been told to make them behave. If that's not something you think might have broader implications past one specific question about drugs, you're right, we have no common ground.