this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1490 readers
33 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
dgerard@awful.systems
16
The promptfans reckon you can fix moderation in post (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 year ago by froztbyte@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Mistral 7B Instruct model is a quick demonstration that the base model can be easily fine-tuned to achieve compelling performance. It does not have any moderation mechanism. We’re looking forward to engaging with the community on ways to make the model finely respect guardrails, allowing for deployment in environments requiring moderated outputs.

“Whoops, it’s done now, oh well, guess we’ll have to do it later”

Go fucking directly to jail

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ABoxOfNeurons@lemmy.one -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I did. I'm not convinced the author knows the space very well though. There are larger models out there with similarly absent safety features. This isn't a remarkable release, and the tone is of ragebait.

Guardrails are a term of art for something like Nemo, which is more like the unreal ramen shop demo or a corporate chatbot. Most raw open models I've tried will tell you how to make meth if you ask them.

[–] pikesley@mastodon.me.uk 12 points 1 year ago

@ABoxOfNeurons @self we've reached the "Ape holders can use multiple slurp juices on a single ape" stage of AI haven't we

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 10 points 1 year ago

Look, I'll just spell this out for you.

The size of the model is not in the least bit the point of contention here. Whether this is the largest language model ever created or a tiny and unimpressive one is not why the article was written or linked here.

The reason the article has an indignant tone as do we is that a company is proudly flaunting that they're not even trying to deal with the harmful potential of the ethically dubious or straight up awful shit their supposedly informational product can produce.

They also have a worryingly excited audience praising them for releasing a model whose main selling point is not even its technical sophistication (as you are keen to point out) but the fact it can be used to answer questions like how to kill one's spouse or why ethnic cleansing is good.

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 7 points 1 year ago

ah, evidence that one needs more than a single box of neurons to

  1. realize that this isn't Model-Quality Debate Club
  2. hear that strange whooshing sound

a handy result!