I would also love to see more transparency around AI behavior guardrails, but I don't expect that will happen anytime soon. Transparency would make it much easier to circumvent guardrails.
They will create boycotts against you, they will lobby government to make your life harder, they will petition payment processors and cloud service providers to not work with you.
We've see this behavior before, it's nothing new. Now if you're the type to fight them, that might not be a problem. If you are a super risk-averse board of directors who doesn't want that sort of controversy, then you will take steps not to draw their attention in the first place.
But AI models are new, they are vulnerable to criticism, and they are absolutely ripe for a group of "antis" to form around.
It's an offhand comment in a discussion on the internet not a research paper, expecting me to immediately have an answer to every possible angle here that I haven't immediately considered is a bit much.
Take it or leave it, I don't really care. I was just hoping to have an interesting conversation.
Because 'those' legal battles over search have already been fought and are established law across most countries.
When you throw in some new application now all that same stuff goes back to court and gets fought again. Section 230 is already legally contentious enough these days.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-19/google-qu...
https://ischool.uw.edu/news/2022/02/googles-ceo-image-search...
Or we could just cave to their insane demands. I'm sure that will placate them, and they won't be back for more. It's never worked before... but it might work for us!
As a user who makes any business decision or does user communication including LLM, you really don't want to have a bad day because the LLM learned about some bias decided to merge it into your answer.
The guardrails are also there so bad actors can't use the most powerful tools to generate deepfakes, disinformation videos and racist manifestos.
That Pandora's box will be open soon when local models run on cell phones and workstations with current datacenter-scale performance. I'm the meantime, they're holding back the tsunami of evil shit that will occur when AI goes uncontrolled.
Their concern is liability and brand. With the opportunity to stake out territory in an extremely promising new market, they don't want their brand associated with anything awkward to defend right now.
There may be a few idealist stewards who have the (debatable) anxieties you do and are advocating as you say, but they'd still need to be getting sign off from the more coldly strategic $$$$$ people.
I am almost certain the federal government is working with these companies to dampen its full power for the public until we get more accustomed to its impact and are more able to search for credible sources of truth.
That seems pretty naive. The "guard rails" are there to ensure that AI is comfortable for PMC people, making it uncomfortable for people who experience differences between races (i.e. working-class people) is a feature not a bug.
At a previous healthcare startup our founder asked us to build some really dodgy stuff with healthcare data. He assured us that it "cleared legal", but from everything I could tell it was in direct violation of the local healthcare info privacy acts.
I chose to find a new job at the time.