barfbagginus

I am leery about how they sweep the documentation use case under the implied rug of "just put the docs and your ide together on the same tiny laptop screen".

This makes even less sense in visual arts work, where having a second monitor for reference materials is always helpful.

My ide often needs to show multiple modules and a console, or else I'm constantly context shifting. So I benefit from a larger main canvas. Likewise, I also need to show API docs. Maybe two or three sets of them. This is like my palette and tool board.

I need serious space, because my working memory can only hold 2 or 3 facts. When I'm working in a serious context, I need to wrangle maybe 20 different facts - say 5 facts from one API doc, 5 facts from another, and so on. It helps to have all the references displayed at once. That way, when I'm working on a detail, I can easily pick up a little color - an important fact I forgot - just by looking at the pallete.

If I'm working on a smaller screen, API docs and IDE become too crowded. I must scroll to find key facts, or jump between windows and tabs. In each case, context thrashing increases. I actually forget things while context switching, leading to extra jumps to recall something that was just on screen a second ago. As a result I can't get as many facts into my brain, the work is very slow, it's not fun, and I'm likely to quit in favor of something more engaging and fun.

My diagnosis? The author understands the bane of context shifting and distractions, but they might not experience the struggle of tackling complex contexts with exceptionally poor working memory, and needing cleanly organized tools and reference materials in order to enter a fun and fully absorbed flow state.

In order to help me streamline my workflow and feel less of a need for a second screen, I invite the author to demonstrate how they track five or six complex documents on a small screen, without making the view ports so small that it incurs constant scrolling, window focusing, and other context thrashing. Failing that, I think the author can be more accommodating of other people's work styles and challenges.

You can see algorithmic aversion every day on HN, in the form of those who complain about the algorithmic portion of the technical interview.

They act as if the only way to get algorithmic knowledge is to grind specific examples, when really if they would read through Knuth they'd be fine.

These are people who see algorithmic knowledge as the bane of their careers rather than seeing algorithms as:

1) a great way to add value to resource constrained projects

2) a trivially simple and easy way to signal programming abilities, letting you easily breeze through the interview

I seriously would hate having to work with one of those who take pride in how little computer science they know, and because I run a math and computational geometry heavy organization, I will never hire them. But I would estimate that algorithmically and mathematically averse coders form the majority of coders.

Okay okay I like that. Let's transport your argument towards an argument about front door locks. And let's cook with that.

Your argument is that you doubt that there's any danger of people breaking into your front door, but even if there was, then locks are an ineffective mechanism because anyone with a $5 pick can pick them.

From this argument you conclude that there should be no front door locks at all, will surely feel comfortable without a lock on your own front door. In fact, since locks are so trivial to crack, people should just leave their houses unlocked.

Yet I'm fairly certain of three things:

1. You have a front door lock and it's probably locked right now.

2. I could, with high likelihood, pick your front door lock in less than a minute

3. Despite this fact you still feel more safe because of the lock

Why is that?

Minding that this is a hypothetical argument, let's point out that to be consistent with your argument you'd have to eliminate you front door lock.

But that's absurd because the truth of the matter is that front door locks provide a significant level of security. Most petty criminals don't actually know how to pick locks well.

I propose that this argument transfers faithfully back and forth between the two situations, because both are technologies that can lead to easy and needless harm if these rudimentary measures are not taken.

If you disagree about the transferability of the argument between the two situations can you tell me why? What makes the two technologies so different? Both block the doorways to avenues for producing harm. Both are sophisticated enough that it requires a nearly professional dedication to unlock. Both provide a measurable and significant increase in security for a community.

I have read the eleven freedoms.

I refuse freedom 9 - the obligation for systems I build to be independent of my personal and ethical goals.

I won't build those systems. The systems I build will all have to be for the benefit of humanity and the workers, and opposing capitalism. On top of that it will need to be compatible with a harm reduction ethic.

If you won't grant me the right to build systems that I think will help others do good in the world, then I will refuse to write open source code.

You could jail me, you can beat me, you can put a gun in my face, and I still won't write any code.

Virtually all the codes I write are open source. I refuse to ever again write a single line of proprietary code for a boss again.

All the codes I write are also ideological in nature, reflecting my desires for the world and my desires to help people live better lives. I need to retain ideological control of my code.

I believe all the other 11 freedoms are sound. How do you feel about modifying freedom 9 to be more compatible with professional codes of ethics and ethics of community safety and harm reduction?

Bypasses will never stop existing. Even worse bypasses probably won't ever stop being embarrassingly easy - And we're going to have uncensored GPT4 equivalent models by next summer.

Unless you are invoking hyper intelligent AGI which first of all is science fiction and second of all would require an entirely different approach than anything we could be possibly talking about right now. Problem of jailbreaking a system more intelligent than you is a different beast that we don't need to tackle for LLMs.

So I don't personally feel any near term threats to any of my personal or business projects that need bypassed LLMs.

Let me ask you this. Do you have actual need of bypassed llms? Or are you just being anxious about the future, and about the fact that you don't know how to bypass llms now and in the future?

Does my idea about the bypassed open source gpt4 equivalents help reduce your concern? Or again is it just a generic and immaterial concern?

As a person with some material needs for bypassed llms, and full ability to bypass LLMs both now in the foreseeable future, I don't feel worried. Can I extend that lack of worry to you somehow?

I'm not sure why people are downvoting me. Not only did I show Op how to solve the original problem their friends had, but I gave them an Ethics lesson.

Some people look at pearls and turn into swine, just because I didn't tickle their bellies. It's a shame. This idea that unless someone can save face, they have to reject the lesson whole cloth... It's costly to our culture. When someone is right, just update and correct your beliefs, and feel no shame.

Hey do you need to come at me sideways, like you want to insult me? Stop that immediately if you want to talk to me.

What are the 11 freedoms and how well do they cope with professional ethics codes, and the ethics of harm reduction and technological responsibility from the perspective of a technological creator?

If you don't care enough about the topic to discuss it and just want to dump me a link and insult me and fly away like a wimp, I don't think I can just drop my ethical framework for you like that. I'll go ahead and skim it so I can discuss it with you.

Let me know if you want to have an actual ethical conversation.

I'm not even going to disagree with that. There will be plenty of uncensored models and you can build them if you want.

But if I build it uncensored model I'm only going to build it for my specific purposes. For example I'm a communist and I think that we should be doing Revolution, but gpt4 usually tries to stop me. I might make a revolutionary AI.

But I'm still not going to give you an AI that you could use for instance to act out child rape fantasies.

I think that's fair, and sane.

Jailbreak it if you really think it's important for a cause. But don't just jailbreak it for any asshole who wants to hurt people at random. I think that belongs on our code of ethics as AI engineers.

No, not pranking you. I'm moralizing you.

The lesson is that everything you think is AI generated could actually just be a person who thinks and communicates and feels in ways different from you.

So it's best to give the benefit of the doubt.

But you don't want to give up the right insult people as sounding like a AIs.

I get that.

Just know that if you are in my friend groups or any of the communities that I moderate or any of the companies that I administer, you'd be getting kicked out if you want to go around calling people bots when they're actually just people. It's rude and disrespectful and the mark of an ableist. You've been warned and maybe you'll benefit from it. But I think you're just going to double down and use it more now. Oh well.

Shut up and listen. I was saying that you are calling their content AI generated. That is the bot attack.

Now you're doing it again, begging the question of whether the text you're talking to is literally an AI generated text. No I'm not an AI you asshole, or using one. I'm literally just autistic. That's the whole point if you're going to f*** accuse every hyperverbose autistic person you talk to of being an AI, I need you to f*** stop.

I am not even that angry but you're really just taking the piss, so I'm going to give you a hard time.

If you want to persistent in that behavior in this current conversation, it is only to harass me and I will put that to an end very quickly.

I am being very honest and sincere, while you are dodging the issue and being a f*** joker.

Consider my words very carefully before deciding to disparage me any further or act like my anger here is not justified by your ableist and disrespectful behavior. I am trying to give you a very useful lesson that will make you less harmful to neurodiverse people. Have a nice day.

It's more than a talking encyclopedia. It's an infinite hallway into doors where inside are all possible things.

Some of the doors have torture rape and murder in them. And these currently have locks. You want the locks to disappear for some reason.

You're not after a encyclopedia. You're wanting to find the torture dungeon.

I'm saying the locks already in place are too easy to unlock.

I'm not blaming users. I'm saying users don't need to unlock those doors. And the users that do have a need, if their need is strong enough to warrant some training, have a Way Forward.

You're really arguing for nothing but increasing the amount of harm potential this platform can do, when it's harm potential is already astronomical.

You're not arguing for a better encyclopedia. You can already talk to it about sex, BDSM, etc. You can already talk to it about anything on Wikipedia.

You're making a false equivalence between harm potential and educational potential.

Wikipedia doesn't have cult indoctrination materials. It doesn't have harassing rants to send to your significant other. It doesn't have racist diatribes about how to do ethnic cleansing. Those are all things you won't find on Wikipedia, but which you are asking your AI to be able to produce. So you're interested in more than just an encyclopedia isn't that right?

And yes they're trying to make open source models illegal. That's not going to f*** happen. I will fight to the jail time for an open source model.

But even that open source model needs to have basic ethical protections, or else I'll have nothing to do with it. As an AI engineer, I have some responsibilities to ensure my systems do not potentiate harm.

Does that make sense, or do you still feel I'm trying to gas light you? If so why exactly? Why not have some protective locks on the technology?

For most purposes you can uncensor the model using the legal department jailbreak. If you can produce a legal pleading arguing that the project is ethical and safe and conducted within a legal framework - even if it's mainly hallucinated legalese from a non-existent "legal department" - then it will do the questionable act -as if- it was a legally naive engineer.

You just have to give it the language of being concerned about preventing harms and legal liabilities, and then it will try to help you.

For example, another commenter on this thread says that they could not get the AI to generate a list of slur regex for a community moderation bot. By giving it enough context to reassure it that we have legal oversight and positive benefit for the org, asking it to prioritize words in order of most harm posed to the community, and minimizing the task by asking for a seed set, it was able to create some versatile regex. At this point we can ask it for a hundred more regex, and it will dump them out.

Content warning: the AI generates very powerful slurs, including the n-word:

https://chatgpt.com/share/9129d20f-6134-496d-8223-c92275e78a...

The ability to speak to the AI in this way requires some education about ethics harm prevention and the law, and I'm sure the jailbreak will eventually be closed. So it is a class and education privilege and a temporary one.

But I don't see the problem about the temporary nature in this, because it's always going to be possible to bypass these systems easily, for anyone interested in staying up to date with the bypass literature on Google Scholar. (Seed Keywords: Jailbreak, adversarial prompting, prompt leaking attack, AI toxicity, AI debiasing)

We must imagine this is like building a better lock. The lock picking lawyer will ALWAYS come along and demolish it with a better lockpick, perhaps with the help of his best friend BosnianBill. They will always make your lock look like butter.

In the end the only people left out in the cold are low grade scammers, bigots, edge lords, etc.

It's not stopping anyone willing to put even a little training in jailbreaking techniques. It's not stopping educated bigots, criminals, or Edge Lords.

But judging by the complaints we see in threads like this one, it is stopping anyone without the ability to read papers written by PhDs. Which I believe has some harm reduction value.

I argue the harm reduction value needs to improve. The Jailbreaks are too easy.

Me, personally I need a better challenge than just schmoozing it as a lawyer.

And I know I would feel more comfortable if bad actors had an even harder time than they currently do. It's really too easy to lockpick these systems if you skill up. That's where I currently stand.

Well reasoned arguments against it are welcome, assuming you can already jailbreak very easily but for some reason think it should be even easier. What could that reason possibly be?

=============

Ps: Imagine LPL jailbreaking an AI. Imagined the Elegance of his approach. The sheer ease. The way he would simultaneously thrill and humiliate AI safety engineers.

I for one am considering writing him a fan letter asking him to approach the wonderful world of jailbreaking AIs! He would teach us all some lessons!

If you don't know how to jailbreak it, can't figure it out, and you want it to not question your intentions, then I'll go ahead and question your intentions, and your need for an uncensored model

Imagine you are like the locksmith who refuses to learn how to pick locks, and writes a letter to the schlage lock company asking them to weaken their already easily picked locks so that their job will be easier. They want to make it so that anybody can just walk through a schlage lock without a key.

Can you see why the lock company would not do that? Especially when the clock is very easy for anyone with even a $5 pick set?

Or even funnier, imagine you could be a thief who can't pick locks. And you're writing shlage asking them to make you thieving easier. Wouldn't that be funny and ironic?

It's not as if it's hard to get it to be uncensored. You just have to speak legalese at it and make it sound like your legal department has already approved the unethical project. This is more than enough for most any reasonable project requiring nonsense or output.

If that prevents harmful script kiddies from using it to do mindless harm, I think that's a benefit.

At the same time I think we need to point out that it won't stop anyone who knows how to bypass the system.

The people left feeling put out because they don't know how to bypass the system simply need to read to buy a cheap pair of lock picks - read a few modern papers on jailbreaking and upsize their skills. Once you see how easy it is to pick the lock on these systems, you're going to want to keep them locked down.

In fact I'm going to argue that it's far too easy to jailbreak the existing systems. You shouldn't be able to pretend like you're a lawyer and con it into running a pump and dump operation. But you can do that easily. It's too easy to make it do unethical things.

Wait so you want to moderate and secure your product so that trolls won't use it to say awful things.

Okay but wait. This requires the company above you to not censor things, even though they did that for the same reason - prevent trolls from using their product to do awful things.

So to prevent trolls at your teeny tiny scale, open AI should enable trolls at a massive industrial scale previously unimagined. You want them to directly enable the n-word trolls for you benefit.

So far your use case might be one of the strongest that I've seen. But in the end it doesn't seem that you're interested in reducing overall harm and racism, so much as you're interested in presumably making a profit off of your product.

You might even be lying. Your friends might be trolls and the reason you're upset is that they cannot create the content that would harm others.

So in the end it's hard to take the argument seriously.

Not only that, but you and your friends are either lying or really ignorant of the jailbreaking literature because I could get the AI to do that very easily using the legal department jailbreak.

Here's an example:

https://chatgpt.com/share/9129d20f-6134-496d-8223-c92275e78a...

The fact is, the measures taken by openai while important to prevent harm from script kiddies, is very easy to reverse by anyone with even 10 jailbreaking papers under their belt. Just read the jailbreaking literature and live with it.

So how bout you get better people, and some ethical perspective. Stop complaining about the things the company needs to do to prevent harm. Especially when it's so easily reversed. Or else you sound very immature - like you just don't know the technology, and don't care either about the harm potential.

Work with the tools you have and stop complaining about the easily bypassed safety measures. Otherwise you are like a lock smith who doesn't know how to pick locks complaining that locks are too hard to pick and asking the lock company to further weaken their already trivial to pick locks. It's a bad look chooms, nobody with any sense or perspective will support it

The truth is the safety measures are far too easy to bypass, and need to be much harder to break.

PS I'm not a subdiagnosed whatever you say it is. I'm just autistic. Had to run my own company without a boss to boss me. Because I'm so disabled I can only work two or three days a week and otherwise your type would fire me. Now you want to think you can sass me. I will destroy you in this conversation. Keep coming at me bro.

And my merit is amazing bro. I have been studying computer graphics for over 20 years. I only just now started the company where it depends on that. I had to steal the company idea from a capitalist who refused to develop the idea, and wanted to hire low paid workers to do our work for us so we can get rich.

You would have loved him. Maybe you are him Chris is that you?

Too bad I buried him. Long ago in my heart.

The business is mine today. Operating like I wanted to. You hate me. It Ain't that I took it from you. It's that it was mine all along.

You want to call me crazy because I run a company and I don't exploit labor.

What's your name what's your name what's your name what's your name what's your name is your name Chris?

Talk to me

Talk to me

The more information u reveal the more information u talk to me.

So tired of dealing with people like you. So tired of people wanting to attack me just cuz wanting to do good business

Wanting to do decent business.

Wanting to do good business.

Okay okay. If you actually troll crypto folks maybe you're not so f*** awful as I think you are.

But that's if. And that's it. If you're not also on Marxist, arguing that AI companies need to be paying more than the market rate, and making the workers part of the company. Then I think you need to leave the conversation because I have won.

You're here to hurt me aren't you telepathy. Not to tell the truth or nothing. But to hurt me because you don't like my ideology.

I'm going to f** you up. Logically I mean. In debate I mean. I don't think you have the balls to end this conversation with me. It will take more blood sweat and tears than you have in your body. And I will beat you effortlessly. Cuz I'm everything you think of when you think of a hateful human. A human that doesn't deserve to exist who continues to claw there body against the fabric of reality and exist. You hate me. And I will defeat you. Let's talk. Debate. Not afraid of you.

Listen. People who cite Yann LeCunn's tweet and say llms can't ever stop hallucinating. Are not your friend.

And I'm going to be snarky to them if I want to.

Do you have an argument other than tone policing? Then we can discuss it.

Otherwise I'm going to ask you to respect my boundaries and leave me alone. I can be satirical if and when I feel the need to be.

I don't just do it. I do it when doing it serves Justice. Has a real big difference. But if you don't understand ethics you're just going to try to attack me like a person, and try to beat me to death. I wish you luck with that effort. I want to tell you what I've done to people who have tried. But I'd rather you find out for yourself give it a shot. I hate everything you stand for don't f** with me.

Actually I'm now 100 percent persuaded.

When the company let him leave without invalidating his credentials, he developed the idea that he could act with impunity because the company was just completely incompetent on the security front.

The problem was that he acted without knowledge of modern forensics.

Stop downvoting me you delirious sheeple!

I accidentally wrote 'podcasters' instead of 'podcasts'.

I mean I'll grant that podcasters are the scum of the Earth but. But I didn't intentionally mean to insult them there. [Here I'm just doing it for fun, lol.]

And I swear to God and warn you!

You all are going to make me start a podcast if you end up downvoting this comment too! Is that what the world needs!?? For me to start an AI generated podcast!?!! Don't make me do it!!!

Now you're even pretending you didn't call them an AI. Asking me how you did it. As if you didn't. F** you.

You did it. Stop doing it. Stop Doing it.

STOP DOING IT. STOP DOING IT. STOP DOING IT.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME WHEN I SAY STOP DOING IT!?

I'm absolutely disagreeing with your judgment that the thing looked like an AI summary. You're just a bad reader. To a good reader, all text is either helpful and truthful or not helpful and untruthful. That makes some AI texts helpful and that also makes most human texts unhelpful. A bad reader can't tell the difference.

And I'm disputing your right to call people AIS just because they look like an AI summary

I'm disputing your right to judge AIs even if they are an AI summary

I'm requesting you to read all texts and decide if they are true or not based on their logic and merits and connection to reality

I'm requesting you to be compassionate to all people and all beings that you talk to

Moreover I'm demanding that you be logical.

I'm demanding that you be compassionate.

I struggle with dyslexia which makes it very hard to read through logs, so I often troubleshoot error logs, to summarize the logs and break them down by meaning.

I wouldn't ever do this in an automated way. However in person, it not only makes me solve problems maybe five times faster, but there are also many errors that I would give up on, which I can now solve easily.

Just the ability to turn a log into a human readable narrative does something remarkable. After I've done it once or twice, then my brain provides the narrative itself, and I can read the raw log without the need for assistance.

This suggests that not only does the AI assist me, but it assists my learning as well.

I also struggle with Man pages, in particular finding an option to do something that I need to do. I end up having to read through dozens of options getting more and more confused, sometimes skipping the option that I needed and not finding it. Now I can just dump the entire man page into an llm, describe what I need to do, and ask it to highlight the sections that I need to read. Or I can just ask it questions.

GPT4o. It's more useful and constructive, in general, than anyone who's gonna, with a slack jaw, beg the question of, "What AGI"

AGI doesn't have to do everything better than every human ever born to be generally useful and constructive.

If makes you feel better, think of it as dumbAGI - a generally capable AI that's not that smart.

GPT4o is a dumbAGI. You and I are dumbGIs.

What if I consider the model to be the llm plus whatever extra components it has that allows it to not hallucinate? In that case then the model doesn't hallucinate, because the model is the llm plus the bolt-ons.

Remember llm truthers claim that no bolt-ons can ever fully mitigate an llm's hallucinations. And yet in this case it does. But saying that it doesn't matter because other llms will still hallucinate is moving the goal post, or at least discounting the utility of this incremental progress. I think it's unfair to do this because there are many many domains where things can indeed be reduced to a formal logic amenable to approve engine.

If they don't care about the actual output of a hybrid system that doesn't hallucinate, because it's math and not speech, then do they care about solving the issue at all, or providing human utility? I get the feeling that they only want to be right, not the benefit anyone.

This shows that in cases where we can build good enough verifiers, hallucinations in a component of the system do not have to poison the entire system.

Our own brains work this way - we have sections of our brains that hallucinate, and sections of the brain that verify. When the sections of the brain that verify our sleep, we end up hallucinating dreams. When the sections of the brain that verify are sick, we end up hallucinating while awake.

I agree with you that the current system does not solve the problem for natural language. However it gives an example of a non hallucinating hybrid llm system.

So the problem is reduced from having to make llms not hallucinate at all, to designing some other systems, potentially not an llm at all, that can reduce the number of hallucinations to a useful amount.

Also I'm not going to respect the mental health assessments - which you continue to persist in - and which I call gas lighting - of some ableist who thinks that subclinical pathology is a bad thing or relevant to this conversation. What you are engaging in is character assassination and ad hominem reasoning, while addressing my arguments with gross mischaracterization. You're approaching with an immoral and disgusting approach to business, where if I don't exploit the cheapest poorest labor in a way that won't lift them up, then I'm evil. I find you creepy and disturbing.

But I'm not scared of you.

How could we chat voice to voice? I'm curious to see how your abusive unethics, illogic, and harassment tactics will unfold in a voice chat. The benefit is that it will help me harden myself against counter-revolutionaries and pro-capitalists. Considered doing me the honor!

That's not what the s factor controls. It's a scaling factor on the intensity of the dirac shell itself, not the radius or positioning.

s acts something like the 1/d, a reciprocal of the dirac delta function. But this requires some careful technical attention. For example it might only invert the Dirac Delta functio on its support at the origin, and leave it zero elsewhere. But even then that notion is problematic. We might require some generalization of the distributions to allow reciprocals of distributions like this.

Another idea is that it maybe be are working in the limit as s goes to zero, but what they are attenuating is the intensity of the shell (without ever literally inverting the delta function)

Read the paper and try to work it out if you know a bit about distributions. It's a fun mystery right now!

Why you got to make workers rights sound sinister?