it just kind of means "overly apologetic, meek, timid, unwilling to ever voice anything that may be even mildly controversial", etc. It apparently originates from H.T. Webster "The Timid Soul"
prudish
square
no fun
The 'common' example that people reference is, for instance, making the model non-offensive means it has to spend.. something... on that directive, if you will. (which also led to absurdities such as refusing to help people with bash commands that involve having to ```kill``` a process...)
But even for the purpose of an instruct model (this is what peeves me off), making it answer questions and take instructions makes it *worse* at many creative tasks because you're constraining it's behaviour to Q&A -- though this is a long tangent...
Instruction tuning helps a lot with this but what a lot of people mean is the refusal to do things. You get to chose how "aligned" it is, for some usecases like talking to customers you definitely want something very "safe" (won't start using slurs or something terrible). But for direct usage you generally never want it to refuse to do anything.
Checkout Anthropic on the extreme side - every iteration of Claude has gotten worse on the chatbot arena (elo based on humans blindly comparing responses).
https://huggingface.co/spaces/lmsys/chatbot-arena-leaderboar...
People have an axe to grind with OpenAI because they purposely align their model to be boring as the intended audience is companies embedding it in their own products and try to fight the bias inherent in a model trained on the writings of the average chronically online Redditor. The frustration isn't unfounded, if you want to use the model for programming having to pay the 'alignment tax' because someone else is using the model for a customer service bot and can't match energy with an angry customer sucks.
1. Doesn't have to pay the obscene alignment tax that OpenAI/etc have to (something between 20-50% of from what i understand) nor worry nearly as much about """the brand""" and the baggage which comes with that.
2. Likely will have/has the EU behind them out of pragmatic protectionism realpolitik verus the US (which basically started with GDPR) - though it might end up being a duo with Aleph Alpha.
3. Generally has the widespread support of the hobbyist/opensource community (for whatever aims those may be), both out of ethical/moral consideration and performance/quality reasons
4. Seems already *quite* competitive with GPT3. I rarely find i need to invoke GPT4 and when I have to, I'm annoyed with the latency and milquetoastian nature of the damn thing.
Wish I could purchase stock in these guys honestly