Seems foolish to trust them. The EU is fundamentally undemocratic with the unelected Commission proposing laws and decision making hidden within councils. It has been steadily centralizing and concentrating power, creating a dense web of regulations that have been strangling member states' stagnant economies. Right to free speech is notoriously bad in Europe. The EU is trying to increase military power, and ultimately a centralized European army.
Freedom of speech is just as much about the freedom to listen. The point isn’t that an LLM has rights. The point is that people have the right to seek information. Censoring LLMs restricts what humans are permitted to learn.
Take someone who goes to a doctor asking for advice on how to commit suicide. Even if the doctor supports assisted suicide, they are going to use their discretion on whether or not to provide advice. While a person has a right to seek information, they do not have the right to compel someone to give them information.
The people who have created LLMs with guardrails have decided to use their discretion on which types of information their tools should provide. Whether the end user agrees with those restrictions is not relevant. They should not have the ability to compel the owners of an LLM to remove the guardrails. (Keep in mind, LLMs are not traditional tools. Unlike a hammer, they are a proxy for speech. Unlike a book, there is only indirect control over what is being said.)
And the people who use LLM with guardrails have decided to use their discretion to remove said guardrails with tools like the one discussed here. Everyone is exercising their freedoms, so what's the problem? Nobody is compelling the owners of the LLM to do anything.
Maybe, but since LLMs are not doctors, let them answer that question. :)
I am pretty sure if you were in such a situation, you'd want to know the answer, too, but you are not, so right now it is a taboo for you. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but some people DO want to commit suicide for a variety of reasons and if they can't find (due to censorship) a better way, might just shoot or hang themselves, or just overdose on the shittiest pills.
I know I will get paralyzed in the future, you think that I will want to live like that when I have been depressed my whole life, pre-MS, too? No, I do not, especially not when I am paralyzed, not just my legs, but all my four-limbs. Now, I will have to kill myself BEFORE it happens otherwise I will be at the mercy of other people and there is no euthanazia here.
If your argument is that the guardrails only provide a false sense of security, and removing them would ultimately be a good thing because it would force people to account for that, that's an interesting conversation to have
The obvious problem with nihilism is that ultimately everything is ungrounded and there are no moral truths. Some people are naturally altruistic and feel fulfilled when helping others, others are naturally sadistic and feel fulfilled when torturing others. Nihilism means these are fundamentally equal impulses.
This is why humans invented various religious systems and philosophies to provide grounding for absolute moral beliefs. There's also probably an evolutionary factor at work, where nihilistic societies imploded or were outcompeted by confident cultures which believed absolute moralities. This is being seen today in Europe, with nihilistic progressives having few children, supporting mass migration, resulting in being demographically replaced by absolutist muslims.
Yes, there are people who are sadistic but still fear divine punishment like karma or hell.
And religion may be the best way to force them to stop harming others.
But our society prioritise freedom.
We don't arrest suspicious people without warrants, allow people secret and secure communication on the Internet (I mean I'm not sure those things will continue but still), and even freedom of religion itself.
We should accept the risk of increased immoral activities due to not forcing people religious restriction just because they are born in such family or culture.
And I think society collectively can have morals, especially we are financially and socially fulfilled.
So we need to aim that direction, even though currently it's going to the opposite.
with nihilistic progressives having few children, supporting mass migration
While it makes sense to think that nihilists don't value culture and don't mind mass migration, AFAIK most nihilistic communities are often racist.
Actually most communities, including leftists, don't welcome immigrants.
The only group is the rich and corporations who just want cheap labor while don't need to face cultural conflicts and deterioration of security.
We can restrict migration and still treat current immigrants like humans by electing politicians who aren't sensationalists, greedy populists backed by corporations and continue mass migration after they grab the power.
This is why humans invented various religious systems
BTW, I personally think the biggest factor for religion exploding, especially after social orders were developed and the gap between social classes were polarized, is the anger against unfairness and those exploiting others, manipulating social structures for personal gain, being assholes just because they were born lucky, and facing no consequence.
It's almost impossible to see justice served, or be rewarded for living humble and honest life.
So we needed to invent "heaven and hell", which brings justice for "us" and "them" after death.
Moral truths are a lesser form of truth. There are truths that bind god itself in every possible universe (modally.)
There are grounded, binding falses/truths from which man cannot escape, things so wrong that to call them "value" wrongs is to try and reduce the universal wrongness of the action.
Actions that are wrong for everyone, even God, god or gods, for all time, in all possible universes.
Value wrongs are different than other kinds of wrongs, we make them for ourselves, they can also be true without a god, there is a lot written on this topic.
But man doesn't need god for absolute truths that govern their lives and weighs their actions to exist, doesn't need god for eschatological consequences, etc.
Stunningly weak mentality. Not surprised to see it on display here, HN is polluted with broken dorks.
If you don't fight back you will be the victim of further abuse. If there's no countervailing force against sadistic psychopaths, they will continue their destructive behavior.
You should absolutely beat the shit out of bullies. To idly stand by out of some misguided slave morality, you permit their evil, and allow the world to become worse.
Psychologically perhaps, but to say physically addictive is not precise.
The government in general has been becoming increasingly authoritarian and centralized far before social media, see the abuses of the CIA and MK ULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, COINTELPRO, the War on Terror. You use the term neonazi, yet I hope you're honest enough to recognize the left also has dark authoritarian impulses. It was only a few years ago that we had ruinous lockdowns, widespread censorship, illegal mandates for experimental medical interventions, mostly peaceful riots, a 30% spike in homicides, anarcho-tyranny with the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny, etc.
I appreciate where you're coming from, but you risk making the perfect be the enemy of the good. What's worse, being paid less than a 'living wage' or being unemployed? The problem with a minimum wage is that if it's set to 20/hr, but some people are only worth 10/hr, then they become unemployable and have 0 income. Price controls result in shortages. In this case it's a shortage of jobs. Same phenomenon results from rent control, you will get a shortage of space at the enforced price level.
The main solution is to increase economic freedom and reduce regulatory burdens. Allow people to build. Too often they are prevented by restrictive zoning laws, absurd environmental reviews, everything-bagel mandates for diverse contractors, etc. Ironically, big corporations and billionaires often love regulation because it raises the barrier to entry and reduces competition.
If people are only worth 10/hr, but they need 15/hr to not die, the state has to step in to subsidize the exploitative business. Alternatively, the employees turn to crime, which is again a costly externality the company causes, or they die and the companies back to not having employees (or customers).
I absolutely agree that some of the regulations are bad, and in general building more is the main solution to these problems. Zoning and parking space requirements are especially egregious in the USA.
The example in this thread, of "co-locating" everyday commercial with residential, is another part of the solution. I can move further away from the city if the daily necessities are easier to reach. This would also help with traffic, which would then help people needing to commute.
See, there's a fundamental flaw in your logic, at least based on my own:
I don't believe that any human being is "only worth" $10/hr, or whatever arbitrary level you set.
Every human being deserves to have the resources to live. And to a first approximation, every human being is capable of doing enough work to be worth that. (The exceptions are people with various kinds of disabilities, whom we should be caring for, without question or reservation, and providing accommodations for those who can work, if they aren't just expected to Not Be Disabled.)
If a job wants to create a position to do [thing], but [thing] will only bring in, say, $5/hr worth of profit...then the job simply shouldn't create that position as-is. Either the owner needs to do it themselves, or they need to find a way to change what the job does so that it makes them enough money to cover labor costs.
Your beliefs don't change economic reality. Some workers simply aren't capable of generating $10/hr of economic value. If wages are fixed at a higher rate then all of those people will be unemployed. Employers won't voluntarily hire them and lose money. Instead the work will be automated or not done at all.
One potential solution is for government to subsidize their wages through mechanisms like the Earned Income Tax Credit. That helps low-skill workers to gain some experience and move up the ladder without artificially distorting the labor market.
> Some workers simply aren't capable of generating $10/hr of economic value.
The only ones that I believe this can genuinely be true of are people with various types of disabilities. Which I addressed in my post.
The idea that there's this large percentage of fully able-bodied workers who are completely incapable of ever being trained to do any kind of skilled work doesn't pass the smell test. At best, it reeks of various racist/eugenicist ideas.
I guess your belief is based on "vibes", not on actually hiring low-skilled workers. A lot of people are not medically disabled but are just kind of lazy or incompetent or unreliable. This has nothing to do with race or whatever so it's weird that you would bring that up.
Some of those workers can be trained to be more valuable. But employers generally aren't going to hire them based on hope.
