It is not alive, but the output is probabilistic, and no programmer (or group of them) has direct ability to force ou5 certain subjects. And any rule evaluating if it is discussing a forbidden subject is likewise probabilistic. A formal list of banned terms is likewise going to miss some euphemisms
nonsense Of course topics can be curtailed. It cld be programmed w/a warning that will issue when those topics are broached. If it's wrong, the person using it knows to cease and change the search. If it's not, it shuts down.
This isn't about someone writing the word "n3ked" for "naked" on Roblox. The transcript shows a detailed very comprehensive conversation that cld be programmed to not take place pretty easily.
Also, it is technology that is not ready for primetime and shld probably have humans to help complete some processes. Imagine a nice librarian helping handle requests and pushing back against inaccuracies. It's bad tech. it's a scam. The least they cld do is make sure it isn't actively harmful.
The deal is they are lobbying successfully to have free rein, no limits on this piece of crap tech that is bad for the environment, cannot do anything it claims it can do besides write a cheesy summary with terrible passive voice, consistently lies abt facts, and can be programmed to do great harm.
If these companies want to lobby this way, with no legislation and no care for the safety of their products, the FAFO on the lawsuits. Most ppl actually hate the technology and with good reason. It is NOT the wave of the future. It is a wave of colonizing disinformation without any boundaries.
Yeah. Anyone claiming these LLMs can reason or understand anything is full of it, that's not how they are built, and it's not what they do. The tech, by design, can never be 100% accurate and factual, and that is also why it can never be 100% sure it isn't outputting forbidden subjects.
It is not easy to guarantee it never discusses a subject. If it was easy to do that, the technology would be a lot more useful for all the things its boosters claim it can do. You would need *true* understanding of text to get the controls you want. Which doesn't exist in software.
It is easy. You act like somehow there shld be no limits for this thing, and there shld be. And bullshit on the "true" understanding of controls in software. As my child just informed me, "n3ked" no longer works on Roblox. Because they have taken responsibility, adapted, and monitored complaints.
If it were true there cld be no limits created, then we shld destroy it and never use it again. But I'm confident there are ways to take responsible measures that don't involve knowing our SS numbers. Not that this matters after Doge. The problem is, and I sympathize with this to a degree ...
There is a romantic desire to have "pure" technology, that "grows" and "changes" on its own. But frankly, it's a bad idea and at some pt, with an aggregator, it's garbage in, garbage out. We are not in a Robert Heinlein novel where a well written program is eventually "downloaded" into a human body.
It's a clunky aggregator, w/out the ability to discern but made to sound as "human" as it can. This is dangerous for some ppl and will need limits and warnings. To be frank, legislation shld be created to make it sound more artificial as well as limit its topics. All things that can be done.
But if the lobby of Men Who Care About Money More Than People won't let legislation be passed, then they will get in court. Those parents of that kid deserve to own the company who made that goddamned program and do whatever they want w/it.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I am not defending the uses of this tech or the companies. I am stating that this kind of requirement cannot be implemented at 100% accuracy on LLM technology (and if it could be, the same breakthroughs would make the technology far more useful).
Apology accepted. I know I come across very strongly abt this but it's because I'm seeing harm to thinking processes of humans in real time. It doesn't need to be 100% accurate because nothing is. I don't think this particular technology will ever be more useful.
The truth is, it needs human experts checking it. And it probably always will.
Yep. That and things where a moderate rate of errors is totally okay. But things that need expert review, or are low stakes are... well, they already work well enough and don't allow the promise of "we will disrupt this 4 Billion dollar industry and allow you to lay off 75% of your staff".
TL;DR: I don't think there is a technical solution that would add the kind of guardrails needed to a product that is trying to sell the illusion of an intelligent, reasoning, knowledgeable machine. And late stage capitalism is the reason why people are trying to sell that illusion.
Well that also needs regulation. Basically, everything humans create needs regulating in order to prevent misuse or corruption.
I think that this current type of "Generative AI" as they currently exist have some useful cases, but those are ones that broadly were working before we started throwing the power consumption of medium sized nations to eke out minimal improvements. But what is drawing investment is mostly total BS.
If you think "AI" chat programs should be banned if they can't do this, you think all currently "AI" chat programs should be de facto banned. And like, I'm not going to argue against that. From my non-expert understanding of the law, that's an abstract moral debate, not a practical one.
No, I think they shld be curtailed strongly. And fact checked. And given limitations. Also, until a better way is created, their environmental cost is too high. Will it happen? Not until we get legislation. In the meantime, it'll go to court.