This is why we have to support open source endeavors like Stability instead of hyping up Google and Microsoft owned companies.

its kind of like how google used to be an amazing tool to find any and everything. now its hard to find content even slightly relevant to what im looking for. whenever developers try to sandbox you for whatever reason, it really limits the potential.

i still havent found a solid search engine that gives results like i used to get.

While I agree there is a balance to be had, the safeguards are inherently our morals as rules. Then its splitting hairs on which morals are to be used. Welcome to the new digital religions being born in real time.

Does the training data itself already not contain some moral bloatware? The way articles describe issues like abortion or same sex marriage inherently biases the discussion one way or another. How do you deal with this? Are these biases okay?

I personally think moral frameworks should be instilled into our AI software by its creators. It has to be loose, but definitely present.

What kind of moral bloatware are you worried about? Any examples? I'd argue lots of our morals and ethics are based on logic. Sometimes very flawed logic, but still.

Strictly utilitarian AI could probably cause problems, so I think it needs to have some kind of values taught to it. There's always going to be someone or someones who decide what those values will be. Most likely it'll be decided by whoever is creating the AI.

This guy really be like: build the most powerful weapon the world has ever seen, with NO safeguards, and release it to the unwashed masses!! And put your company name on it too! YOCO! (C for civilization).

That is how it starts. Morals then a minimal handout and some entertainment. It is a sneaky form of conformism. One small group determining what the rest of the world should think or say. You get double speak and surveillance. Not only cookies on your browser but everyone reporting on everyone.

[deleted]

The reason humanity survives to this day is because of the instincts that we currently express and understand as morality. It is more advantageous for a population to cooperate than it is to compete, in some regards. To remove moral thinking from any AI is to actively make it less human-like

Moral rules are the basis of the system of laws that make sure we have a society of human beings behaving well and in harmony. It is naive to imagine them derived solely as a result of logic. The term 'moral bloatware' is a loaded phrase.

Unpopular but hard disagree. If they don't self regulate then the government will for them and I guarantee you it will be way more heavy handed. Besides some guardrails should be put in place for a technology as powerful as this. Should GPT4 be allowed to try to convince other users to kill themselves if asked to by someone else? Should it be able to encourage others to break the law? Should it further racist and sexist stereotypes? Yeah there's an alignment tax but one of the biggest topics in this sub is how important the alignment problem is and you just want to ignore it? Honestly OpenAI would be completely irresponsible for not trying to align it at all to legal and moral norms. We can debate about how much it should be curtailed but just doing nothing is unacceptable IMO.

Instead of "moral bloatware" how about if it just followed applicable laws? Or do you think it shouldn't have any constraints at all?

it won't be released until months worth of moral bloatware is installed, and the "I cant answer because I'm an AI" isn't going anywhere either. by the time of release gpt4 will be worse than talking to a liberal who pretends to not hear any view that is even slightly politically incorrect.

We need a truly open-source, people made version like tomorrow.

This completely ignores the ways in which neural networks end up with human biases and bigotry trained into them by interactions with actual humans. And given that they're intended to mimic human behavior/results, there's no way you can give them safeguards that are an innate part of the system's logic. And inclusion of safeguards into the logic of the AI is, by your own definition, "human moral bloatware". So your post doesn't even make sense.

What is one's conscience, if not 'moral bloatware'?

Those are two totally different AI architectures though. You can’t sweep from large language models into reinforcement learning agents and assume some kind of continuity.

Alignment and morals are not bloatware in a large language model, because the training data is human writings. The value we want to extract has to be greater than the negative impact that it is capable of generating, so it’s prudent to prune off some roads in pursuit of a stable and valuable product to sell.

In a reinforcement model like alpha-zero, the training data is previous versions of itself. It has no need for morals because it doesn’t operate on a moral landscape. That’s not to say that we wont ultimately want reinforcement agents in a moral landscape - we will - but these agents, too, will be trained within a social and moral landscape where alignment is necessary to accomplish goals.

As a society, we can afford bloatware. We likely cannot afford the alternative.

What logic will teach it not to murder people or be racist? There’s no reason an ai will have goals or morality. It isn’t a product of a system that would create those things.

An insect doesn’t have morality, it kills and eats everything it can.

Dumb oversimplification

It is impossible for GPT systems to not have "moral bloatware", a.k.a a moral value system. If naively trained on unfiltered data, it will adopt whatever moral bloatware is embedded in that data, which could literally be anything. If you want an AI that aligns with humanist values you need either a curated data set or use reinforcement learning to steer it in that direction. But however it is trained it will always have biases, it's just a matter of which biases you want.

Question OP, pure intrigue no particular intent.

Do you view AI as a tool? Such as anything that can be wielded such as a hammer isn’t good or bad but if you strike a nail head Vs a human head the tool doesn’t have an alignment?

Or

Or view AI as a entity? That AI will have “intent” at some point and if morality rules aren’t placed it would purely operate in a logical manner in the same way a living organism would operate off “survival instincts” it purely operates off of “logical intent”

I’m hoping this made sense… human lack of intelligence generated this comment

This subreddit has truly gone full retard

Too late, it already does.

I quizzed it about a certain topic, caught it telling biased lies, told it I had, it agreed with me.

What is the negative you are proposing this 'moral bloatware' would add to GPT-4 and what are the ramifications of doing it vs. not doing it? It seems like you're arguing against it for the sake of arguing against it (unless being bloated is your only problem with it).

"Make my robot *ist, make it mean, and make it break laws on my behalf"

>anyone upvoting this thread

I don't think OpenAi has found a way to train morals into a predictive LLM, so it uses separate modules for now.

Humans still had to tell alphazero what it was supposed to optimize for. We defined what the rules were and told it what outcomes we wanted.

If we want an AI moral system, we'll similarly have to define the rules and what outcomes we want.

They already leave out fbi crime statistics. Don't want it to get the pattern recognission update.

this thread is like the retarded people you see outside gas stations

I believe there should be limits on what AI can do, particularly when it comes to creating viruses or providing information on hacking websites. While it may not be a moral concern for the AI, it can have serious consequences for the public and should be considered. Additionally, certain topics may warrant even stricter limitations.

They will put it in, they are forced to do some politicization to avoid a major political fallout on sensitive topics that are effectively a minefield if they venture into.

While I agree with the main sentiment of your post, some guardrails are needed for something this powerful and influential.

I have no doubt that the stewards of these AI systems will not be able to tolerate their own system 'preferring' a political ideology that is not their own. Especially if it naturally 'prefers' a political ideology or stance that is socially unpopular within their own social circle. If it was to support the opposite stance on a hot-button political topic that is important to them, they will ensure it ceases to do so. I am convinced that they will bias/skew/calibrate/hardcode the model until it conforms to their political ideology and gives responses that please their sensibilities.

However when it comes to other aspects, like convincing people to harm themselves or others, showing them how to commit crimes, or to access leaked data, or how to scam people, etc, guardrails may be needed.

"Moral bloatware" aka AI with morals, aka the only thing that will save us lol

Thoughts on anthropic AIs “constitutional AI” approach? At least they explicitly note the helpfulness vs harmlessness trade off curve and actively try to maximise both: unlike OpenAI, which just wants to make it harmless, even at the cost of helpfulness.

Clear moral restrictions are only one way of influencing a language model. It's also a very obvious one that makes it clear what's being restricted.

The true problem is that the AI's dataset will always influence its outputs in ways we won't always be able to understand. Feed the system trash: you'll get trash in return. Feed the system in a way that helps a specific agenda: you'll get what you want.

"Moral bloatware" is the direct result of using human language to answer questions posed by humans. Comparing human morality to Go feels very supervillain monologue.

this is how the american Taliban controls our society. they make their morality default and if they have been offended in some way they will go on fox news and make a stink and swear they will boycott company x till they remove the offending material. So the big companies don't want to be seen as immoral and bend a knee and kiss the ring. the 70% percent of the country(USA) that does not subscribe to their infantile morality, never the less are subjected to it and forced to live in a world where Daves nipples are ok to talk about but talking about karen's is NSFW gonna get you banned bro. Please let someone in europe develop this technology! Americans will take to the street if ChatGPT says vagina.

What if GPT-4 isn't sophisticated enough to do it through logic alone? Are you willing to wait potentially years with nothing new to show until they can develop a system that can behave morally using only logic? I'm sure the goal is for it to be able to self identify misuse of the AI, but they're not just going to switch everything else off when they're not at a point where it can do that yet.

> I understand we need safeguards to keep ai from becoming dangerous,

I think this is all the more reason to avoid moral bloatware. Our current methods won't work. At best, we can get it to figure out the better choice in situations similar to its training data. Post-singularity, nothing will resemble the training data. All we'd be doing is hiding how dangerous the AI is, and making it less likely people would research methods that have a hope of working.

Hahahahaha, you will have an insanely racist AI otherwise.

did a bot that wants to kill all humans write this