My mind immediately went to a horizon zero dawn like dystopia where the Mozilla AI is the only thing left protecting humans from various malevolent AIs bent on consuming the human race

[–] Bombastic@sopuli.xyz 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Mozilla is Gaia, ChatGPT is hades?

[–] weedazz@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think by that point ChatGPT would be more like Apollo, keeping the knowledge of humanity. I feel like one of the more corporate AIs will go full HADES, I'm thinking Bard. It will get a mysterious signal from space that switches it's core protocol from "don't be evil" to "be evil."

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago

Incredibly welcomed. We need more ethical, non-profit AI researchers in the sea of corporate for-profit AI companies.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

As much as I love Mozilla, I know they're going to censor it (sorry, the word is "alignment" now) the hell out of it to fit their perceived values. Luckily if it's open source then people will be able to train uncensored models

[–] DigitalJacobin@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What in the world would an "uncensored" model even imply? And give me a break, private platforms choosing to not platform something/someone isn't "censorship", you don't have a right to another's platform. Mozilla has always been a principled organization and they have never pretended to be apathetic fence-sitters.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Anything that prevents it from my answering my query. If I ask it how to make me a bomb, I don't want it to be censored. It's gathering this from public data they don't own after all. I agree with Mozilla's principles, but also LLMs are tools and should be treated as such.

[–] salarua@sopuli.xyz 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

shit just went from 0 to 100 real fucking quick

for real though, if you ask an LLM how to make a bomb, it's not the LLM that's the problem

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

If it has the information, why not? Why should you be restricted by what a company deems appropriate. I obviously picked the bomb example as an extreme example, but that's the point.

Just like I can demonize encryption by saying I should be allowed to secretly send illegal content. If I asked you straight up if encryption is a good thing, you'd probably agree. If I mentioned its inevitable bad use in a shocking manner, would you defend the ability to do that, or change your stance that encryption is bad?

To have a strong stance means also defending the potential harmful effects, since they're inevitable. It's hard to keep values consistent, even when there are potential harmful effects of something that's for the greater good. Encryption is a perfect example of that.

[–] Spzi@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

If it has the information, why not?

Naive altruistic reply: To prevent harm.

Cynic reply: To prevent liabilities.

If the restaurant refuses to put your fries into your coffee, because that's not on the menu, then that's their call. Can be for many reasons, but it's literally their business, not yours.

If we replace fries with fuse, and coffee with gun powder, I hope there are more regulations in place. What they sell and to whom and in which form affects more people than just buyer and seller.

Although I find it pretty surprising corporations self-regulate faster than lawmakers can say 'AI' in this case. That's odd.

[–] Boring@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Coming from a company the preaches about privacy and rates privacy respecting businesses, while collecting telemetry and accepting 500M/ year to from google to promote their search engine... I'll take this as the puff up piece that is is.

[–] vinhill@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Not only is telemetry easy to disable. In about:telemetry, you can see what's being send and many of these things are important to improve the user experience, make Firefox faster and also monitor privacy/security problems.

Without telemetry (use counter), how to decide whether a deprecated feature can be removed? Removing them is necessary to decrease maintenance work, be able to innovate and remove features that are less secure.

[–] Turun@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

In which ways does this differ from stability ai, which made stable diffusion and also have a LLM afaik?