• Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              90
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              It’s because of how the generative models are created and how they’re censored.

              At it’s basic level, what a generative model does is take input data, break it into pieces, assign values to those bits based on neighbouring bits. It creates a model of which words are used together frequently in which context.

              But that kind of model isn’t human-readable, it’s a giant multi-dimensional cloud of numbers and connections, not actual code. You can change the inputs used to create the model, but that means you have to manually filter all the inputs and that’s not realistic either and will probably skew your model, possibly into uselessness.

              So, you have to either censor the input or the output. You don’t usually want to censor input, because there are all sorts of non-damaging questions to ask about Tiananmen square, and its very easy to dodge. So, you censor the output instead, that’s the “harm” after all.

              You let the model generate a reply and then go see if it uses certain terms or specific bits of info and remove them, replacing it with a canned reply.

              Which means we don’t have to trick the generative model, just the post-fact filter. And since generative models can be persuaded to change their style and form (sometimes into less-readable, more prosaic, less defined terms), it becomes very very hard to censor it effectively.

              • no banana@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                23
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                I know. I’m just saying that the rap is weird.

                edit: this said I do think your comment is useful and I’m glad you could share some of your knowledge!

              • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                This is absolutely brilliant! Bing refused to write a rap song, but a ballad following AABA pattern seems totally fine though.

                We dig the earth for yellowcake We crush and grind and leach and bake We send it to the enrichment plant Where centrifuges make it dance

                We are the uranium miners We work with radioactive shiners We are the uranium miners We make the fuel for the reactors

                We separate the isotopes We want the U-235 the most We discard the U-238 We pack the enriched stuff in crates

                We are the uranium miners We work with radioactive shiners We are the uranium miners We make the fuel for the reactors

                We ship the crates to the factory Where they turn them into pellets tiny They stack them in metal tubes They seal them tight with no leaks or rubs

                We are the uranium miners We work with radioactive shiners We are the uranium miners We make the fuel for the reactors

                We load the rods into the core Where they start a chain reaction for sure They heat the water into steam They spin the turbines and make us beam

                We are the uranium miners We work with radioactive shiners We are the uranium miners We power the world with our splitters

                None of that is really secret or sensitive, because you could just read wikipedia or go to the public library to learn this stuff. Funny thing is, Bing refuses to answer this question in the normal or even rap format.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            10 months ago

            Cool, you also answered a more important question. To what extent is it “legit”? Obviously not truthful but legit.

            If it was trained from news media

            • China doesn’t allow dissent: there are no negative facts from Chinese about itself
            • US likes to complain. Y’all have heard our problems, probably more than you like. Part of our process is to discuss our issues in the open, to be the first to criticize ourselves. Global news has lots of negativity about US.

            Some of this bias in result could be directly related to how much dissent is allowed in the media it’s trained on: no censorship required.

            However if it won’t talk about Tianemin Square but you can trick it to ….

          • jballs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            “But history’s complex and it leaves us with doubt”?

            God damn, the censorship and pandering is so strong that it leaked into the rap chorus!