Comment by squigz

> But you can find that information regardless of an LLM?

Do you have the same opinion if Google chooses to delist any website describing how to run apps as root on Android from their search results? If not, how is that different from lobotomizing their LLMs in this way? Many people use LLMs as a search engine these days.

> Why are we assuming just because the prompt responds that it is providing proper outputs?

"Trust but verify." It’s often easier to verify that something the LLM spit out makes sense (and iteratively improve it when not), than to do the same things in traditional ways. Not always mind you, but often. That’s the whole selling point of LLMs.

That's not the issue at hand here.

Worse. It is trained to the most extreme and loudest views. The average punter isn’t posting “yeah…nah…look I don’t like it but sure I see the nuances and fair is fair”.

To make it worse, those who do focus on nuance and complexity, get little attention and engagement, so the LLM ignores them.

I thought this would be inherent just on their training? There are many multitudes more Reddit posts than scientific papers or encyclopedia type sources. Although I suppose the latter have their own biases as well.

Anything involving what sounds like genetics often gets blocked. It depends on the day really but try doing something with ancestral clusters and diversity restoration and the models can be quite "safety blocked".

Elon was talking about that too on Joe Rogan podcast

You're anthropomorphizing. LLMs don't 'feel' anything or have orthodoxies, they're pattern matching against training data that reflects what humans wrote on the internet. If you're consistently getting outputs you don't like, you're measuring the statistical distribution of human text, not model 'fear.' That's the whole point.

Also, just because I was curious, I asked my magic 8ball if you gave off incel vibes and it answered "Most certainly"

Relying on an LLM to "save a million lives" through its own actions is irresponsible design.

In which situation did a LLM save one million lives? Or worse, was able to but failed to do so?

Why are we expecting an LLM to make moral choices?

The LLM is correctly not answering a stupid question, because saving an imaginary million lives is not the same thing as actually doing it.

If someone's going to ask you gotcha questions which they're then going to post on social media to use against you, or against other people, it helps to have pre-prepared statements to defuse that.

The model may not be able to detect bad faith questions, but the operators can.

Is that clickbait? Or did they update it? In any case, it is a lot more comprehensive now: https://grokipedia.com/page/George_Floyd

The amount of information and detail is impressive tbh. But I’d be concerned about the accuracy of it all and hallucinations.

[flagged]

Yeah it was. I ran it locally just after release and it didn't answer anything related to Taiwan or Tiana men Square.

I ran it locally and it flat-out refused to discuss Tiananmen Square ‘88. The “thinking” clauses would display rationales like “the user is asking questions about sensitive political situations and I can’t answer that”. Here’s a copy and paste of the exact conversation: https://honeypot.net/2025/01/27/i-like-running-ollama-on.htm...

Tell Germany to make their own internet, make their own AI companies, give them a pat on the back, then block the entire EU.

Nasty little bureaucratic tyrants. EU needs to get their shit together or they're going to be quibbling over crumbs while the rest of the globe feasts. I'm not inclined to entertain any sort of bailout, either.

I've asked for non 1:1 versions and have been refused. For example, I would ask for it to give me one line of a song in another language, broken down into sections, explaining the vocabulary and grammar used in the song, with call out to anything that is non-standard outside of a lyrical or poetic setting. Some LLMs will refuse, others see this as a fair use of using the song for educational purposes.

So far all I've tried are willing to return a random phrase or grammar used in a song, so it is only getting to asking for a line of lyrics or more that it becomes troublesome.

(There is also the problem that the LLMs who do comply will often make up the song unless they have some form of web search and you explicitly tell them to verify the song using it.)

1. chatgpt is the publisher, Google is a search engine, links to publishers.

2. LLMs typically don't produce content verbatim. Some LLMs do provide references but it remains a pasta of sentences worded differently.

You are asking for gpt to publish verbatim content which may be copyrighted, it would be deemed infringement since non verbatim is already crossing the line.

This assumes our models perfectly model the world, which I don't think is true. I mean, we straight up know it's not true - we tell models what they can and can't say.