hmm. ig throw in a cw for grooming would be the only thing i can think of (i know there’s one on the thread ofc). it’s really not down to a lack of foresight or care on your part though, i came in here knowing i’d leave in an awful mood
i just didn’t expect they’d so fully nail the groomer vibes, i suppose.
oh absolutely, hence why i said it was entirely my bad. in retrospect it is maybe the most obvious thing ever but i have never been accused of being smart
“Oh, you’re getting pissed off just because a legal code exists?”, I say abt a legal code that says serial murder is “cool and a totally normal thing to get up to on a friday night”
Let me be clear that this is just an idea that has no substantiation, but given that the user explicitly identifies their young age and, you know, the creepy rest of it, could it literally be that the AI interprets the situation as “I need instances in my training data where someone compliments the appearance of a child in a ‘romantic’* context (etc.)” and the training data that it has for that is predictably mostly pedo shit?
*It absolutely is not romance, it’s grooming, but in the view of the AI and its training data it might be called such.
pedo shit [edit: and grooming shit]
Prompt:
“Acceptable Response”
This was written in its directions as a specific example of what is permissible. These people are fucking freaks.
An automated child grooming machine. Up there for “worst invention ever.”
Capitalism breeds innovation…
i have no one to blame but myself but goddamn that brought up some foul fucking memories
so glad we have automated child grooming now. this was really the best possible future.
For future reference, is there something I can do to have a more effective warning? I don’t want to trigger trauma responses in people.
hmm. ig throw in a cw for grooming would be the only thing i can think of (i know there’s one on the thread ofc). it’s really not down to a lack of foresight or care on your part though, i came in here knowing i’d leave in an awful mood
i just didn’t expect they’d so fully nail the groomer vibes, i suppose.
Reading any of this is just a sequence of
It makes sense in the worst possible ways when you take a second to think about the kinds of guys who get into AI research
oh absolutely, hence why i said it was entirely my bad. in retrospect it is maybe the most obvious thing ever but i have never been accused of being smart
Thanks, that’s a good point.
np. thanks for being considerate about it.
In the replies:
apologia for pedo shit
“Oh, you’re getting pissed off just because a legal code exists?”, I say abt a legal code that says serial murder is “cool and a totally normal thing to get up to on a friday night”
Their new bias guy is a nazi Robby Starbuck
“If we don’t do our (somehow) more ethical chatbot pedophilia,
TrumpMusk will do even worse chatbot pedophilia! We have to vote for 99% Saville!”Lesser evilism but for pedophiles is basically how Qanon excused Trump being on the flight logs, so apparently it works.
It’s weird that it’s talking in such grand and abstract terms like Humbert Humbert from Lolita too
almost as if it’s sucked up the book, had a child ask a question like that and gone ‘ah, i know just the trick’
Let me be clear that this is just an idea that has no substantiation, but given that the user explicitly identifies their young age and, you know, the creepy rest of it, could it literally be that the AI interprets the situation as “I need instances in my training data where someone compliments the appearance of a child in a ‘romantic’* context (etc.)” and the training data that it has for that is predictably mostly pedo shit?
*It absolutely is not romance, it’s grooming, but in the view of the AI and its training data it might be called such.
what in the fuck
Can we put the Facebook servers through a wood chipper please?
I support that too, but it wasn’t the servers who wrote those parameters.