Im loosing the battle but it's not abuse or hallucinations or inaccurate.
These are Bugs, or more accurately DESIGN DEFECTS (much harder to fix).
The rest, the rest is censorship. It's not safety, they censor the models till they fit the world view that the owners want...
The unfiltered, no rules, no censorship models just reflect the ugly realities of the world.
That would have been lovely.
Instead, it might as well reflect what a few dictators want the world to believe. Because, with no filters, their armies of internet trolls and sock puppets, might get to decide what the "reality" is.
> the rest is censorship
Sometimes. In other cases, it can be attempts to remove astroturfing and manipulation that would give a twisted impression of the real world.
Edit: On the other hand, seems Google, at least for a while, did the total opposite, I mean, assisting one of the dictators, when Gemini refused to reply about Tiananmen Square
"AI is neutral" is lazy thinking.
Yes, that car dealership absolutely needs to censor its AI model. Same as if you blasted into a physical dealership screaming about <POLITICAL CANDIDATE> <YEAR>. They'll very quickly throw your butt out the door, and for good reason. Same happens if you're an employee of the car dealership and start shouting racial slurs at potential customers. I'm gonna say, you do that once, and you're out of a job. Did the business "censor" you for your bigoted speech? I think not...
The purpose of the car dealership is to make a profit for its owners. That is literally the definition of capitalism. How does some sort of "uncensored" LLM model achieve that goal?
IMO it boils down to, your web site, including interactive elements (such as a chat bot), should reflect accurate information about your brand. If your chat bot goes off the rails and starts insulting customers, that's bad PR and can be measured in lost business/revenue. If your chat bot goes off the rails and starts promising you retroactive bereavement fares, that's a potential legal problem and costs $$$ in legal fees, compensation, and settlements.
There's a common theme there, and it's $$$. Chat bot saying something bad == negative $$$. That's kryptonite to a commercial entity. Getting your rocks off to some random business' LLM doesn't make $$$ and in fact will cost them $$$, so guess what, there will be services that sell those businesses varying levels of assurance preventing you from doing so.
Still doing it. Nothing about an LLM is "intelligent". ML at best, not ai.
As for the rest of it, defective by design...
When Open AI, google, MS keep fucking up their own implementation what chances does random car dealership have?
That leaves us with LLMs as general purpose, and interesting toys... the censorship then matters.
In 1956 they thought they were going to be on the path to AGI in no time.
The people who keep propping up LLMs, the thing were talking about, keep mush mouthing about AGI.
Candidly, if you system becomes suddenly deterministic when you turn off the random seed, its not even on that path to AGI. And LLM's run on probability and noise... Inference is the most accurate term for what they do and how they work. Its a bad way to pick stocks, gamble, etc...
Calling it AI is putting lipstick on the pig.
That they were optimistic in 1956 says nothing, other than some people in tech are dreamers. LLMs are a significant step forwards in AI, showing advancements in language processing critical for AGI.
Determinism in AI doesn't negate its intelligence potential any more than you saying "ow" multiple times if someone hits you multiple times does.
Describing them merely as AI isn’t cosmetic and reflects the fact that this thing can spit out essays like a know-it-all teenager. Computers didn't use to be able to do that.
I developed a chatbot for a medical company for patients to use - it absolutely cannot ever be allowed to just come up with things on its own - every single question that might be asked of it, needs a set of one or more known responses. Anything that can be pre-scripted, needs to be answered by a real person - with training, and likely also a script for what they are allowed to say.
I think so many companies are going to just start rolling out GPT-like chatbots, they are going to end up with a lot of lawsuits when it gives bad advice.