When a Chinese company does this, it's "literally '1984.'"
Which one is it?
When a Chinese company does this, it's "literally '1984.'"
Which one is it?
In other words, can I teach a state of the art useful model that believes 2+2=5
Sure you can get it to state 2+2=5 if asked, but there are a lot of ways to ask about 2+2 and various implications of a system of knowledge that believes 2+2=5. If having the LLM believe untruths borks the models, then that's a good thing.
I think a similar question is about encryption. Is the nature of encryption defensive or offensive. I don't know enough to say its directly related to p=np but I imagine the question is if there is a way to encrypt something such that the physical laws of nature make cracking the encryption impractical.
And?
"they did it so we're doing it to" is childish, worse than childish: infantile.
Looking into the social media footprints of people who are most vocal about censorship in various models it appears that for a great deal of them the primary problem they have is that they are being blocked from generating images of minors from japanese cartoons being raped.