Comment by DonaldPShimoda
8 hours ago
This is like arguing that we shouldn't try to regulate drugs because some people might "want" the heroin that ruins their lives.
The existing "personalities" of LLMs are dangerous, full stop. They are trained to generate text with an air of authority and to tend to agree with anything you tell them. It is irresponsible to allow this to continue while not at least deliberately improving education around their use. This is why we're seeing people "falling in love" with LLMs, or seeking mental health assistance from LLMs that they are unqualified to render, or plotting attacks on other people that LLMs are not sufficiently prepared to detect and thwart, and so on. I think it's a terrible position to take to argue that we should allow this behavior (and training) to continue unrestrained because some people might "want" it.
What's your proposed solution here? Are you calling for legislation that controls the personality of LLMs made available to the public?
There aren't many major labs, and they each claim to want AI to benefit humanity. They cannot entirely control how others use their APIs, but I would like their mainline chatbots to not be overly sycophantic and generally to not try and foster human-AI friendships. I can't imagine any realistic legislation, but it would be nice if the few labs just did this on their own accord (or were at least shamed more for not doing so)
At the very least, I think there is a need for oversight of how companies building LLMs market and train their models. It's not enough to cross our fingers that they'll add "safeguards" to try to detect certain phrases/topics and hope that that's enough to prevent misuse/danger — there's not sufficient financial incentive for them to do that of their own accord beyond the absolute bare minimum to give the appearance of caring, and that's simply not good enough.
[dead]
Comparing LLM responses to heroine is insane.
I'm not saying they're equivalent; I'm saying that they're both dangerous, and I think taking the position that we shouldn't take any steps to prevent the danger because some people may end up thinking they "want" it is unreasonable.
heroin is the drug, heroine is the damsel :)
You’re absolutely right!
The number of heroine addicts is significantly lower than the number of ChatGPT users.
Pretty sure most of the current problems we see re drug use are a direct result of the nanny state trying to tell people how to live their lives. Forcing your views on people doesn’t work and has lots of negative consequences.
Okay, I'm intrigued. How in the fuck could the "nanny state" cause people to abuse heroin? Is there a reason other than "just cause it's my ideology"?
here’s something I noticed: If you yell at them (all caps, cursing them out, etc.), they perform worse, similar to a human. So if you believe that some degree of “personable answering” might contribute to better correctness, since some degree of disagreeable interaction seems to produce less correctness, then you might have to accept some personality.
Who are you to determine what other people want? Who made you god?
...nobody? I didn't determine any such thing. What I was saying was that LLMs are dangerous and we should treat them as such, even if that means not giving them some functionality that some people "want". This has nothing to do with playing god and everything to do with building a positive society where we look out for people who may be unable or unwilling to do so themselves.
And, to be clear, I'm not saying we necessarily need to outlaw or ban these technologies, in the same way I don't advocate for criminalization of drugs. But I think companies managing these technologies have an onus to take steps to properly educate people about how LLMs work, and I think they also have a responsibility not to deliberately train their models to be sycophantic in nature. Regulations should go on the manufacturers and distributors of the dangers, not on the people consuming them.