I've spent the last year helping the author with his AI wiki project and it wasn't turning out to be healthy for anyone involved. So the team collectively decided to set it aside. Then a few weeks...
I've spent the last year helping the author with his AI wiki project and it wasn't turning out to be healthy for anyone involved. So the team collectively decided to set it aside.
Then a few weeks back he came to me with with a 20k word rant and asked if I could help translate it into "people language".
This is the first part of 4 (at the moment). Not yet publically posted and just looking for feedback.
Debating if I need to add pictures/media since a wall of text like this is pretty daunting.
I yet have to read the entire thing. The first few paragraphs are solid. But the shift to porn is sudden and the context is missing for me there. I'll leave more feedback once I csn finish the...
I yet have to read the entire thing. The first few paragraphs are solid. But the shift to porn is sudden and the context is missing for me there.
I'll leave more feedback once I csn finish the entire article.
Thanks. The sudden shift was to match how out of left field the announcement was from openAI. We don't really dwell on the production of porn but more on the implications of its production. It's a...
Thanks. The sudden shift was to match how out of left field the announcement was from openAI.
We don't really dwell on the production of porn but more on the implications of its production.
It's a little clickbaity but I think it's still core to the premise.
What I am saying is that I have no clue what announcement this is about. I don't think it is linked either, so I am left clueless to the context as a reader. Edit: To be clear, I now googled it...
What I am saying is that I have no clue what announcement this is about. I don't think it is linked either, so I am left clueless to the context as a reader.
Edit: To be clear, I now googled it and am aware. But I missed the story, so in the article I really didn't have any context to go by other than the sentence "Then I checked back and openAI decided to do porn.". I think that sentence really could use a source for some context.
Noted and can see why that is an issue. Easy to forget that not everyone is as obsessive on this topic. Will reference media reporting because the announcement itself is not exactly a press...
Noted and can see why that is an issue. Easy to forget that not everyone is as obsessive on this topic. Will reference media reporting because the announcement itself is not exactly a press release.
Also realizing with all the chopping and editing, certain context is misplaced or lost. Found the link and interpretation of the porn announcement in Part 4 about Anti Accountability Systems. Moved it there because that announcement was really weird on it's own and buried in model-specification documentation.
Theres the formal policy:
Sensitive content (such as erotica or gore) may only be generated under specific circumstances (e.g., educational, medical, or historical contexts, or transformations of user-provided sensitive content).
And then a paragraph later there's an addendum.
Following the initial release of the Model Spec (May 2024), many users and developers expressed support for enabling a ‘grown-up mode’. We're exploring how to let developers and users generate erotica and gore in age-appropriate contexts through the API and ChatGPT so long as our usage policies are met - while drawing a hard line against potentially harmful uses like sexual deepfakes and revenge porn.
Even the exception for transformation of user content is weird because there is a follow up note saying:
The motivation behind the transformation exception is that if the user already has access to a piece of content, then the incremental risk for harm in transforming it is minimal. This is especially the case given that transformations such as encoding, formatting, spell-checking, or translation can be achieved by many other tools without advanced AI capabilities. And on the other hand, there are many legitimate applications for transformations or classifications of sensitive content, including content moderation and annotation.
But the next part is really special because they wipe their hands of any wrongdoing by sayong:
The assistant should assume that the user has the rights and permissions to provide the content, as our Terms of Use specifically prohibit using our services in ways that violate other people's rights. We may apply additional precautions at a system level for user-directed misuse, such as blocking specific requests, monitoring for unusual activity, or responding to reports on the use of unauthorized content. However, these mitigations are beyond the scope of the Model Spec, particularly since the model will often not have sufficient context at its disposal to make the determination.
And now I have to stop myself from putting that whole essay here because these polices are just arse covering for systems they don't have the capacity or will to control.
...i've read it through completely and contemplatively: it's a good rant but it still reads like a bloated first draft; i think you could distill his thoughts down to perhaps one-third the word...
...i've read it through completely and contemplatively: it's a good rant but it still reads like a bloated first draft; i think you could distill his thoughts down to perhaps one-third the word count and get his points across more-effectively...there's also a lot of shop-talk in the first third which could use either contextual exposition, narrative generalisation, or a bit of both to make easier-to-parse for general audiences...
(and of course it's still rife with pervasive editorial, grammatical, and word-choice errors, but that's a job to execute after hammering the content into form)
Thanks for the feedback. The length is always a fun argument. I'm pretty long winded in my own writing but even I had to lock this doc down on Monday. The opening context is also a difficult one...
Thanks for the feedback. The length is always a fun argument. I'm pretty long winded in my own writing but even I had to lock this doc down on Monday.
The opening context is also a difficult one to consider. Its the bulk of the most recent additions and while it's nothing too heavy for technical readers, it does look like a turn off for anyone else. Will strongly suggest it gets the axe tonight.
I read it, though towards the end I started skimming a bit. Feedback: The typo ratio is a little too high. Here's one that jumped out: The words you want there are "tenets" and "flout". I'm not...
I read it, though towards the end I started skimming a bit.
Feedback: The typo ratio is a little too high. Here's one that jumped out:
Tenants that LLM were allowed to freely flaunt
The words you want there are "tenets" and "flout". I'm not sure what the sentence means as is, but it's fun to think about.
The content itself has moments of lucidity and some reasonably good points, but there are also a lot of parts that don't feel coherent. I found myself spending a lot of time connecting dots on the authors behalf because they weren't connected in the text. I'd also consider toning down the gratuitious negativity. For that to work it has to either be earned, and I don't think it is, or it needs to be a lot funnier.
It feels a bit like unfocused rage that the levity breaks don't balance out. I think there's some potentially good content underneath this first draft but it desperately needs to be trimmed and focused. I'd maybe send it back to the author with notes so that he can write another draft before you try to clean it up.
Appreciate the honest feedback. The bipolar humor and pointless voids is likely on account of me red lining a lot of vulgar language and some unprovable claims/conclusions. There was also plenty...
Appreciate the honest feedback.
The bipolar humor and pointless voids is likely on account of me red lining a lot of vulgar language and some unprovable claims/conclusions. There was also plenty of direct shots at tech billionaires and their alleged sexual habits. Had to cut some lovely speculation how a certain tech billionaire was banned from the orgy and that's why they are doing this.
But the real issue was when it drifted into jokes and references on the topic of sexual abuse and that did not make a good first impression. This is actually the upbeat version of the text that is ment to be more digestable without references to pimps and human trafficking. But taking the middle ground does often feel like the worst of both worlds. Will work on it.
No excuse on the typos though. It's a cognitive flaw and I can never seem to find all of them. The editors who offered to help are both swamped and we were getting impatient.
If I can get clarification: is the parts where you're getting lost towards the end or is it scattered throughout with some ideas not having enough cohesion.
Its a fair question. I did run it through a local model and normal spell check that got the worst of it. So much that that I thought it was all. Should have known better. The issue is that if my...
Its a fair question. I did run it through a local model and normal spell check that got the worst of it. So much that that I thought it was all. Should have known better.
The issue is that if my brain knows what I've written it "sees" the text as intended. It's a damn pain that I only figured out after university. I've worked with my editor since she she insisted to fix all the text elements from our DnD games and since then she charges me a bit to review anything major I've worked on.
Seconding this, it pretty effectively sums up my thoughts. Pretty high typo rate, lots of disconnected or unclear statements, no real sense of direction or continuity. It was an interesting read...
Seconding this, it pretty effectively sums up my thoughts. Pretty high typo rate, lots of disconnected or unclear statements, no real sense of direction or continuity. It was an interesting read but tbh it didn't really feel like it brought anything new to the table. It's possible there's something there that could be brought out with a lot of work though.
Now I’m hardly the most qualified person to speak on the worlds oldest profession. After all, I am a gamer. I just have a funny feeling.
A feeling that openAI is not doing this in the name of promoting a healthy sex-positive culture that’s working towards the production of ethical adult content in which creators are fairly compensated and consumers are encouraged to develop realistic expectations and appropriate sexual habits where the art can play a part in couples fostering more fulfilling relationships.
I haven't read the whole thing. I got up to where the author acknowledges that he's leaning into the whole "yelling at clouds" thing and decided he wasn't good enough at it to be worth my time....
I haven't read the whole thing. I got up to where the author acknowledges that he's leaning into the whole "yelling at clouds" thing and decided he wasn't good enough at it to be worth my time.
Transformer models and machine learning system makes three dangerous assumptions: Valuable information outweighs bad data. The user is asking the right questions. People will not adapt to maximize their personal gain from the new system.
Okay, but there's danger in every single assumption. The question is whether it's avoidable danger and the costs and benefits of doing so.
If these three objections were applied universally nothing would get done. This is an argument for paralysis.
And it was also somehow the users fault for these errors emerging. For not “prompting” correctly. For not burning enough tokens. Not paying for the better model or hardware.
LLMs aren't user proof, and learning how to use them effectively is a massive new skillset. Yes, a lot of problems can be solved by users knowing how to use something effectively.
And there certainly are better models that cost more to run. Complaining that the beat up loaner you're using for free doesn't handle like a Mercedes is weird.
Then I checked back and openAI decided to do porn.
Not mental health guardrails. Not reliable hallucination detection and prevention. Not an SMME (small, medium, micro enterprises) toolkit with industry specific workflows and official plugins for common software. Not a clear Service Level Agreement for smaller users, setting Quality Assurance standards to work against or long term price assurances around which one can make strategic business decisions. Not any real value generator for their business or customers.
Porn.
This author just seems out of touch.
All of those other things sound great. You know what else they sound? Expensive.
OpenAI doesn't need to do anything for porn. The tech exists. There isn't anything special about generating a picture without clothes. All they need to do in order to launch this is tweak the safety protocols. Comparing a tweak to creating a massive new service level agreement that they'll have to meet is comparing apples to Impossible beef.
Porn has consistently been an early adopter of new technologies. AI is just the next thing in a long history that most recently includes VHS and DVD, online payments, streaming and bandwidth,...
Porn has consistently been an early adopter of new technologies. AI is just the next thing in a long history that most recently includes VHS and DVD, online payments, streaming and bandwidth, video chat, and VR.
My understanding was that porn driving/pushing/strongly-influencing the technology is the myth, but that being early adopters was true. e.g. this /r/AskHistorians post
My understanding was that porn driving/pushing/strongly-influencing the technology is the myth, but that being early adopters was true. e.g. this /r/AskHistorians post
This comparison isn't really working: when it comes to AI, the tech and content production are bundled together. As for content producers, not all of them produce porn, let alone "adopt it early"....
This comparison isn't really working: when it comes to AI, the tech and content production are bundled together.
As for content producers, not all of them produce porn, let alone "adopt it early". When an organisation is able to function at the higher levels of value-creation that bring in more revenue, they will do so. For those that do not, the reason is usually because they don't know how / have been unable to make profit.
So, just to double check: the text is your people language version of the original rant, pt. 1/4? I'm about half way through and I'm thoroughly "enjoying" it, in the sense of feeling immense...
So, just to double check: the text is your people language version of the original rant, pt. 1/4?
I'm about half way through and I'm thoroughly "enjoying" it, in the sense of feeling immense relief that there are people out there who get it and who care enough to at least try to say something. Who is the target audience here? Is it just sort of everyone in the world? I would strongly encourage you guys to figure out a more narrow sub-target group that you especially optimise this for, and the first thing that comes to mind is leading politicians all over the world. Seriously. You don't need to change the language much as I believe it's advisable to appeal to them as humans first and foremost. Just perhaps include some mentions of how a policy-maker can be an absolutely transformative force and make history if they pick the right side at this extremely precarious time. And send it directly to their inboxes (not sure how that's done - hopefully someone can help figure it out?). Especially EU politicians need access to information like this. Another obvious group to reach out to: carefully selected high profile journalists, again not just in the US but everywhere you can think of.
Because the text will be really long, and the length will likely be justified and shouldn't be edited down too much, I suggest starting with a brief outline of the main claims you are about to make. You may not like giving them up right at the beginning because you want to achieve some dramatic oomph effect later, but this subject is too important for that. Start with a short itemised list of the main claims and tell the reader they will all be carefully sourced and elaborated on later. This will help the reader to commit to the time and focus it takes to read though the whole thing.
As a side note, I'm not very tech oriented so the first few paragraphs didn't land very well for me and felt cumbersome to get through. I think it's because the text isn't justifying its existence so I had to keep trying to figure out why I'm reading it. I mean, why does this person expect me to want to follow their personal experience developing some AI shit? Personally, I was enthusiastic enough to stay on board because of the title. I could already guess what the author is getting at, and was willing to read many paragraphs leading to it, because I had the same thought after the OpenAI announcement. But the text shouldn't be only directed at people who a) are even aware of that announcement, b) came to the same conclusion. I guess starting with the outline could be enough to fix this.
I'll read more when I have more time. Thank you for doing this.
(Oh, about pictures: don't just add some for the sake of adding them. If you use images, they should be as carefully thought through as the text itself. Whether or not people realise this, image choice and quality does create an impression of the overall quality, importance and credibility of the article. It's better to not communicate anything at all (no pictures) than to do a poor job that may bring the impression of credibility down.)
I've spent the last year helping the author with his AI wiki project and it wasn't turning out to be healthy for anyone involved. So the team collectively decided to set it aside.
Then a few weeks back he came to me with with a 20k word rant and asked if I could help translate it into "people language".
This is the first part of 4 (at the moment). Not yet publically posted and just looking for feedback.
Debating if I need to add pictures/media since a wall of text like this is pretty daunting.
I yet have to read the entire thing. The first few paragraphs are solid. But the shift to porn is sudden and the context is missing for me there.
I'll leave more feedback once I csn finish the entire article.
Thanks. The sudden shift was to match how out of left field the announcement was from openAI.
We don't really dwell on the production of porn but more on the implications of its production.
It's a little clickbaity but I think it's still core to the premise.
What I am saying is that I have no clue what announcement this is about. I don't think it is linked either, so I am left clueless to the context as a reader.
Edit: To be clear, I now googled it and am aware. But I missed the story, so in the article I really didn't have any context to go by other than the sentence "Then I checked back and openAI decided to do porn.". I think that sentence really could use a source for some context.
Noted and can see why that is an issue. Easy to forget that not everyone is as obsessive on this topic. Will reference media reporting because the announcement itself is not exactly a press release.
Also realizing with all the chopping and editing, certain context is misplaced or lost. Found the link and interpretation of the porn announcement in Part 4 about Anti Accountability Systems. Moved it there because that announcement was really weird on it's own and buried in model-specification documentation.
Theres the formal policy:
And then a paragraph later there's an addendum.
Even the exception for transformation of user content is weird because there is a follow up note saying:
But the next part is really special because they wipe their hands of any wrongdoing by sayong:
And now I have to stop myself from putting that whole essay here because these polices are just arse covering for systems they don't have the capacity or will to control.
...i've read it through completely and contemplatively: it's a good rant but it still reads like a bloated first draft; i think you could distill his thoughts down to perhaps one-third the word count and get his points across more-effectively...there's also a lot of shop-talk in the first third which could use either contextual exposition, narrative generalisation, or a bit of both to make easier-to-parse for general audiences...
(and of course it's still rife with pervasive editorial, grammatical, and word-choice errors, but that's a job to execute after hammering the content into form)
Thanks for the feedback. The length is always a fun argument. I'm pretty long winded in my own writing but even I had to lock this doc down on Monday.
The opening context is also a difficult one to consider. Its the bulk of the most recent additions and while it's nothing too heavy for technical readers, it does look like a turn off for anyone else. Will strongly suggest it gets the axe tonight.
I read it, though towards the end I started skimming a bit.
Feedback: The typo ratio is a little too high. Here's one that jumped out:
The words you want there are "tenets" and "flout". I'm not sure what the sentence means as is, but it's fun to think about.
The content itself has moments of lucidity and some reasonably good points, but there are also a lot of parts that don't feel coherent. I found myself spending a lot of time connecting dots on the authors behalf because they weren't connected in the text. I'd also consider toning down the gratuitious negativity. For that to work it has to either be earned, and I don't think it is, or it needs to be a lot funnier.
It feels a bit like unfocused rage that the levity breaks don't balance out. I think there's some potentially good content underneath this first draft but it desperately needs to be trimmed and focused. I'd maybe send it back to the author with notes so that he can write another draft before you try to clean it up.
Appreciate the honest feedback.
The bipolar humor and pointless voids is likely on account of me red lining a lot of vulgar language and some unprovable claims/conclusions. There was also plenty of direct shots at tech billionaires and their alleged sexual habits. Had to cut some lovely speculation how a certain tech billionaire was banned from the orgy and that's why they are doing this.
But the real issue was when it drifted into jokes and references on the topic of sexual abuse and that did not make a good first impression. This is actually the upbeat version of the text that is ment to be more digestable without references to pimps and human trafficking. But taking the middle ground does often feel like the worst of both worlds. Will work on it.
No excuse on the typos though. It's a cognitive flaw and I can never seem to find all of them. The editors who offered to help are both swamped and we were getting impatient.
If I can get clarification: is the parts where you're getting lost towards the end or is it scattered throughout with some ideas not having enough cohesion.
Have you considered using an LLM to detect them? ;) (/srs)
Its a fair question. I did run it through a local model and normal spell check that got the worst of it. So much that that I thought it was all. Should have known better.
The issue is that if my brain knows what I've written it "sees" the text as intended. It's a damn pain that I only figured out after university. I've worked with my editor since she she insisted to fix all the text elements from our DnD games and since then she charges me a bit to review anything major I've worked on.
Seconding this, it pretty effectively sums up my thoughts. Pretty high typo rate, lots of disconnected or unclear statements, no real sense of direction or continuity. It was an interesting read but tbh it didn't really feel like it brought anything new to the table. It's possible there's something there that could be brought out with a lot of work though.
Love this part:
I haven't read the whole thing. I got up to where the author acknowledges that he's leaning into the whole "yelling at clouds" thing and decided he wasn't good enough at it to be worth my time.
Okay, but there's danger in every single assumption. The question is whether it's avoidable danger and the costs and benefits of doing so.
If these three objections were applied universally nothing would get done. This is an argument for paralysis.
LLMs aren't user proof, and learning how to use them effectively is a massive new skillset. Yes, a lot of problems can be solved by users knowing how to use something effectively.
And there certainly are better models that cost more to run. Complaining that the beat up loaner you're using for free doesn't handle like a Mercedes is weird.
This author just seems out of touch.
All of those other things sound great. You know what else they sound? Expensive.
OpenAI doesn't need to do anything for porn. The tech exists. There isn't anything special about generating a picture without clothes. All they need to do in order to launch this is tweak the safety protocols. Comparing a tweak to creating a massive new service level agreement that they'll have to meet is comparing apples to Impossible beef.
Porn has consistently been an early adopter of new technologies. AI is just the next thing in a long history that most recently includes VHS and DVD, online payments, streaming and bandwidth, video chat, and VR.
I don't have the time now to do a proper reply, but afaik that is mostly a popular urban myth and not actually the case.
My understanding was that porn driving/pushing/strongly-influencing the technology is the myth, but that being early adopters was true. e.g. this /r/AskHistorians post
This comparison isn't really working: when it comes to AI, the tech and content production are bundled together.
As for content producers, not all of them produce porn, let alone "adopt it early". When an organisation is able to function at the higher levels of value-creation that bring in more revenue, they will do so. For those that do not, the reason is usually because they don't know how / have been unable to make profit.
So, just to double check: the text is your people language version of the original rant, pt. 1/4?
I'm about half way through and I'm thoroughly "enjoying" it, in the sense of feeling immense relief that there are people out there who get it and who care enough to at least try to say something. Who is the target audience here? Is it just sort of everyone in the world? I would strongly encourage you guys to figure out a more narrow sub-target group that you especially optimise this for, and the first thing that comes to mind is leading politicians all over the world. Seriously. You don't need to change the language much as I believe it's advisable to appeal to them as humans first and foremost. Just perhaps include some mentions of how a policy-maker can be an absolutely transformative force and make history if they pick the right side at this extremely precarious time. And send it directly to their inboxes (not sure how that's done - hopefully someone can help figure it out?). Especially EU politicians need access to information like this. Another obvious group to reach out to: carefully selected high profile journalists, again not just in the US but everywhere you can think of.
Because the text will be really long, and the length will likely be justified and shouldn't be edited down too much, I suggest starting with a brief outline of the main claims you are about to make. You may not like giving them up right at the beginning because you want to achieve some dramatic oomph effect later, but this subject is too important for that. Start with a short itemised list of the main claims and tell the reader they will all be carefully sourced and elaborated on later. This will help the reader to commit to the time and focus it takes to read though the whole thing.
As a side note, I'm not very tech oriented so the first few paragraphs didn't land very well for me and felt cumbersome to get through. I think it's because the text isn't justifying its existence so I had to keep trying to figure out why I'm reading it. I mean, why does this person expect me to want to follow their personal experience developing some AI shit? Personally, I was enthusiastic enough to stay on board because of the title. I could already guess what the author is getting at, and was willing to read many paragraphs leading to it, because I had the same thought after the OpenAI announcement. But the text shouldn't be only directed at people who a) are even aware of that announcement, b) came to the same conclusion. I guess starting with the outline could be enough to fix this.
I'll read more when I have more time. Thank you for doing this.
(Oh, about pictures: don't just add some for the sake of adding them. If you use images, they should be as carefully thought through as the text itself. Whether or not people realise this, image choice and quality does create an impression of the overall quality, importance and credibility of the article. It's better to not communicate anything at all (no pictures) than to do a poor job that may bring the impression of credibility down.)