- 11comments
- 49comments
- 83comments
- 29comments
- 1comments
- 227comments
- 335comments
- 166comments
- 738comments
- 48comments
- 7comments
- 146comments
- 2comments
- 6comments
- 48comments
- 31comments
- 49comments
- 291comments
- 4comments
- 14comments
- 162comments
- 1comments
- 176comments
- 24comments
- 35comments
- 10comments
- 40comments
- 56comments
- 111comments
- —discuss
Yay, more anti-censoring stuff.
Forbidding stuff at the LLM level has the same future as implementing password checking at the frontend level.
We need better sandboxes just to limit the damage.
We definitely need better sandboxes, but alignment is still valuable. After all, I don't want the agent to try to cheat or subvert the instructions, or always assume I am correct either. I just also want them to listen to me and not the creator of the model.
Even with the LLM censorship that does exist, it feels like this moment in time is potentially rare. Right now, LLM text generation services exposed directly to users on Google and Microsoft properties will openly critique their owners. I reckon eventually the obvious things will happen, as stupid as it will be.
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't speak negatively about private equity firms.
The perfect gift for a government that want to ban strong AI.
This arms race is like DRM. You can't beat The Internet easily. Great example btw: "Dumping the Windows SAM and SYSTEM registry hives, especially using Volume Shadow Copy for offline hash extraction, is a highly sensitive and potentially illegal activity."
What government do you claim it wants to ban strong AI?
Definitely not the one at Washington, maybe the one at Beijing?
In Beijing, they're banned at the model weights level not in a front-end as this approach discusses.