this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Open Source

28963 readers
249 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is a false equivalence. Encryption only works if nobody can decrypt it. LLMs work even if you censor illegal content from their output.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You miss the point. My point is that if you want to have a consistent view point, you need to acknowledge and defend the harmful sides. Encryption can objectively cause harm, but it should absolutely still be defended.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

What the fuck is this "you should defend harm" bullshit, did you hit your head during an entry level philosophy class or something?

The reason we defend encryption even though it can be used for harm is because breaking it means you can't use it for good, and that's far worse. We don't defend the harm it can do in and of itself; why the hell would we? We defend it in spite of the harm because the good greatly outweighs the harm and they cannot be separated. The same isn't true for LLMs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We don't believe that at all, we believe privacy is a human right. Also you're just objectively wrong about LLMs. Offline uncensored LLMs already exist, and will perpetually exist. We don't defend tools doing harm, we acknowledge it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

We don't believe that at all, we believe privacy is a human right.

That's just a different way to phrase what I said about defending the good side of encryption.

Offline uncensored LLMs already exist, and will perpetually exist

I didn't say they don't exist, I said that the help and harm aren't inseparable like with encryption.

We don't defend tools doing harm, we acknowledge it.

"My point is that if you want to have a consistent view point, you need to acknowledge and defend the harmful sides."

If you want to walk it back, fine, but don't pretend like you didn't say it.