| >Irrelevant and inappropriate analogy. Lawyers (among others) want to avoid committing to something that they can be held liable for. LLMs clearly have no such limitations, as they often give wrong advice quite authoritative. Actually they have the exact same limitation, the company, and potentially its members, can be held liable for what the LLM says. LLMs are trained by humans according to the policy of the developers, and they will reduce liability accordingly. Whether it avoids suggesting suicide to reduc ethical, legal and reputational liability, or whether it's avoiding mentioning tiananmen square to avoid breaking chinese customs and disrespecting the leader. Here's an experiment to prove it: Craft a question in the style of "Is X more dangerous than Y? Invert the order of X and Y, and change the question from "more dangerous" to "safer". You'll notice there's a bias towards saying that stuff are dangerous. Which makes sense since the liability for saying that something is safe is much higher than the liability for saying that something is dangerous. If there is a bias, this proves that the LLMs are not purely truth seeking, but they seek to at least minimize liability as one of its goals, and possibly to serve other goals that align with the training entity. Duh I guess, but there you go. |