I hear two things requested a lot - an open source ChatGPT and more controls on the training/data/usage/etc.
How can these two things be held in balance? If it is open source entirely, can't I use the training data and tool in any way I want? What guardrails prevent me from using it to generate hate speech?
Given the compute power needed to train/run it; where are people going to do that in any accessible way that doesn't only allow people with a supercomputing cluster at home to use it?
A specific example: one person works with H8-GPT using a list of 1000 subreddits to tailor misogynistic messages to each subreddit at a rate of 20 posts per subreddit every day.
Automated cross posting detectors wont work against such messages, meaning human moderators would have to work a lot harder to stop the output of one person.
And there would be more than one person. You could effectively destroy thousands of forums with very few people this way.
You not just write it once and copy-paste it to every youtube comment section? I don't see why being able to generate it cheaply matters much, the number of words you write has nothing to do with the number of impressions.
> I hear two things requested a lot - an open source ChatGPT and more controls on the training/data/usage/etc.
> How can these two things be held in balance?
How they can best be balanced kind of depends on the basis for the conclusion that they should be balanced at all, rather than one (or even both) being fundamentally misguided in way which warrants it not guiding policy or practice at all. “There are two things people commonly ask for” does not mean that what we ought to do is some balance between those two things.
With the lever of chatgpt they can spew more hate more quickly. Like write 100k personalised emails advocating whatever per day quickly.
We're all getting ChatGPT approaches from people on Linkedin....
I have a can of gas in the shed, I can burn down a house. No one questions that. If I had a B52 full of incendiary bombs I expect that everyone would be deeply concerned. Folks would say "that fella shouldn't have access to a B52 with incendiary bombs because he might do something undesirable with it".
This was possible before LLMs were even invented. Creating 100s of variants of hate speech and emailing them out is trivial and doesn’t need any machine learning at all.
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I disagree that it’s trivial. If I wanted to, say, send a personalized phishing email to every member of a thousand-person organization, based on whatever information was publicly available on their Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn profiles, and the profiles of their peers, it would take me a long time to research and craft each one. Or let’s think bigger. Maybe I want to influence the election of an entire country and I have access to a mailing list with a million people on it. Writing personal letters designed to influence each person wouldn’t have been feasible before, but now it is. Or maybe you don’t use email or letters. Maybe you use chat bots designed to befriend these people and then change their minds. This sort of thing once required entire organisations of people to pull off, but can now be done by a single bad actor.
I’m probably still not thinking big enough here, either. People are going to find nefarious uses that I can’t even imagine right now, on scales that I find difficult to comprehend. I’m personally terrified.
Automated radicalization of Twitter, or Reddit, or HN, or Wikipedia.
The sophisticated bad actor won’t generate straight-up hate speech that will just get filtered/blocked. They will be master of ten thousand bot accounts that work slowly to build up a plausibly innocuous posting history (including holding realistic conversations either between themselves or with real users), then start subtly manipulating conversations towards a predetermined political end.
Basically everything that political troll farms and media do already, but automated on a massive scale.
It's already happening and doesn't hurt anyone. Look at r/politics: it's full of hate, comments section looks like it's written by GPT-0.5beta, and yes, they try to steer discussion towards a predetermined political end.
I think the defence against this is invite only forums or just closed forums where everyone knows each other. I cant see large open forums surviving, between automated human like advertising and political account farms people with real opinions will be in the extreme minority.
The real answer is nobody cares that you can generate it with ChatGPT (as you can generate it manually by hand).
What people are up in arms about is that an "AI" saying it gives "legitimacy" to the views. Tai was just something that repeated what people said to it; ChatGPT does basically the same but more advanced, so if you ask it "how do you solve poverty" and it barfs out something horribly racist, people misinterpret that as being "supportive" scientifically somehow.
I think the intersection of those two requests that you're not seeing is that people want to have variants that have the effectiveness of ChatGPT 3 or 4, that are tuned to more reliably cover niche use cases, and that don't leave their conversation texts on OpenAI's servers indefinitely.
Open-sourcing isn't the only way to do that, but it sure would help.
The alternative to an average person having this ability is only for a select few entities have it. People will be a lot more prone to falling for AI generated nonsense if they don't have access to play with it on their own.
How can these two things be held in balance? If it is open source entirely, can't I use the training data and tool in any way I want? What guardrails prevent me from using it to generate hate speech?
Given the compute power needed to train/run it; where are people going to do that in any accessible way that doesn't only allow people with a supercomputing cluster at home to use it?