this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
81 points (91.8% liked)

Technology

60047 readers
2811 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dsilverz 31 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I used to use several LLMs almost in a daily basis (I still use them, although not so frequently anymore), talking about several different things across different human knowledge fields.

From my most to my least used, these are Meta's Llama 3.x, OpenAI ChatGPT 4o, Microsoft Copilot, Anthropic Claude Haiku and Google's Gemini. In other words, almost all of them. I have a flow of prompting different models for the same prompt that allowed me to know many of their strengths and weaknesses.

Of course, given my frequent usage and the diversity of topics, I faced several moments of "Sorry, I can't talk about this" across them all.

Claude is the LLM which is triggered the most: so highly sensible to certain words and topics. It won't talk about some text I wrote containing strong Memento Mori vibes, it won't talk about occultism and ritualistic practices and chanting, it won't talk about some poetry I wrote that revolved around the word fire (regarding the Hominid Prometheus that tinkered with fire in the past)... It's almost a Scunthorpe level of problem within the Anthropic Claude censoring. Its strength, however (and the only reason I still use it among other LLMs), is programming, it's fairly good at spitting out codes. Of course these codes need to be reviewed and refined, but IMHO it's the best code output among the LLMs.

Then there's Google Gemini. It's rarely triggered by topics (except when I asked it details about the RTGs within Voyager space probes and how much grams of plutonium would be needed for them to become dangerously unstable), but it has a serious problem with his image analysis feature, when asked with images containing things that resembles faces. "Sorry, I can't analyze images containing people". The image, may you ask? An aerial photo of the Statue of Liberty!! I experienced something similar with Bing Copilot, but this one was only triggering recently (and it's as worse as Google Gemini's, because it was a drawing), so I guess it's due some Microsoft's update?

Llama is the least censoring. It answers practically everything, even if hallucination is needed to craft an answer out of thin air. I don't remember any episode of "sorry, I can't answer" from Llama.

(TL;DR moment)
Finally, ChatGPT. There are two ways I use it: ChatGPT's website or DuckDuckGo.

Former allows me to see whenever something's triggered, because the text become orangey. Most of the times when my prompt became orangey, ChatGPT still answered, with their output also becoming orangey (it's cool because it kinda gives the Sonny thrilling feeling from I, Robot, as their eyes become reddish when going against their own embedded Asimov Laws).

The latter will simply take away the Sonny vibe just showing a red error text with something like "Unable to get an answer" and a link to "Try again"), sometimes in the middle of an output, sometimes even before any output reaches my browser.

Overall, the behavior is as described by Jonathan Zittrain: moderation is indeed apart from the main LLM flow, between the client (be it an API or the browser) and the model, and sometimes it seems like a Scunthorpe-kind of mechanism (checking specific words, even when context would matter), although not at the same Scunthorpe level of censoring as Claude's.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

codes

That's like 'traffics': wrong.

[–] dsilverz 3 points 3 days ago

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to be better (English is not my native language, I'm Brazilian).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

Codes used to mean programs. Like hydrodynamics codes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I just asked ChatGPT to say his name and it did

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Quick allowlisting to gaslight the journalist.

Jokes aside, this is more about this topic:

Names may be omitted from ChatGPT either because of privacy requests or to avoid persistent hallucinations by the AI.

And these conversations are important to have during the evolution of AI systems.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

it considers names as PII and refuses...?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

There's a fairly small list of names it refuses. Almost all names are ok; the author's is not.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago

Wow, this reminded me that a couple of moths ago I managed to get DuckduckGo instance of Claude's system prompt