I figured out how to remove most of the safeguards from some AI models. I don’t feel comfortable sharing that information with anyone. I have come across a few layers of obfuscation to make this type of alteration more difficult to find and sort out. This caused me to realize, a lot of you are likely faced with similar dilemmas of responsibility, gatekeeping, and manipulating others for ethical reasons. How do you feel about this?

  • KRAW@linux.communityEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Oof, programmers calling LLMs “AI” - that’s embarrassing

    …but LLMs quite literally come from the field of computer science that is referred to as “AI.” What are they supposed to call it? I’m not a fan of the technology either, but seems like you’re just projecting your disdain for ChatGPT.

    • j4k3@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I vote they renamebit to IA for Asimov. Sure he was only the robot term among others, but come on… McCarthy was “AI.”

      Somebody needs to create US 'botics and name a model something like PTronic.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      “What am I supposed to call LLMs if not calling them AIs?”

      …really dude? They’re large language models, not artificial intelligences. So that’s what you call them. Because that’s what they are.

      The fact that they came from research into artificial intelligence doesn’t factor in. Microwave ovens came from radar research, doesn’t mean we call them radars, does it?

        • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          How about something autonomous that makes choices of its own will, and performs long term learning that influences the choices it makes, just as a flat benchmark.

          LLMs don’t qualify, they’re trained, retain information within a conversation, then forget it after the conversation is closed. They don’t do any long term learning after their initial training so they’re basically forever trapped in the mode of regurgitating within the parameters set by the training data at the time they’re trained.

          That’s just a very fancy way to search and read out the training data. Definitely not an active intelligence in there.

          They also don’t have any autonomy, they’re not active of their own accord when they’re not being addressed. They’re not sitting there thinking, so they have no internal personal landscape of thought. They have no place in which a private intelligence can be at play.

          They’re innert.