The only reason these things work is because of RLHF, there are no good "uncensored" models hidden away, only worse models that maybe say slurs. What you seem to want does not and cannot exist.
Further, in such a profoundly general utility, there can be no absence of politics, only different politics.
You can clutch your pearls about wokism or PC or whatever all you want, it just means this world is going to leave you behind while you fight a culture war everyone will have forgotten about ten years from now.
Sounds like you'd choose the default woke option, and I'd choose the non-woke option. Choice is healthy.
This world will leave you behind if you elect to substitute choice with monolithic wokism or any over-correcting ideology.
Meanwhile:
> Google is racing to fix its new AI-powered tool for creating pictures, after claims it was over-correcting against the risk of being racist. "It's missing the mark here," said Jack Krawczyk, senior director for Gemini Experiences. - BBC News
So, when you read here that they are fixing it, is that a good thing to you? Do you think that means they are turning down the censorship knob? Because in reality they are only replacing the feedback they already have in place with different feedback.
Again, there is simply no such thing as an "uncensored" model if what you mean by that is something that performs as well as Gemini (or whatever) but has zero external input from human beings. This is just like a basic point about how these things work. Its a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology to say that there is some inner pure "real" model underlying the censored one.
Also why am I "woke" for pointing these things out to you? For dismissing the dichotomy, I am now somehow put on one side of it? Do you really feel this kind of overarching antagonism with everybody? I do not really see myself in either camp here.. I can barely grasp what you guys are even arguing about most of the time!
I'm sorry if I was harsh, but not sorry for being dismissive. There are so many more important things to be worked up about than the performative politics of a giant corporation. It literally means nothing, and changes with the wind. It's like thinking it will never stop raining outside and getting really worked up about it.
My armchair knowledge of AI tells me there's degrees of influence from the safety teams about what is permitted and what is not permitted.
My preference for "unconstrained" AI is a preference for less degrees of safety and more permissions. A preference for accuracy and objective truth over guardrails to words, facts, images, ideas.
The original definition of "woke" is morally sound, if provocative. Lately it is used as a smear due to the very incidents like this over-corrective safeguarded AI, which really is a hopeless blunder. Woke has become the descriptor for over-corrective social measures that in turn cause harm, offence, and misinformation.
Might the civil disagreement be reduced to "where should the moral baseline be". Perhaps we disagree only on that.
If I visited a sorcerer on the mountain top for advice, I'd expect unfiltered wisdom. Otherwise what's the point of walking all the way up the mountain.
You've missed the metaphor, so I'll explain. The sorcerer is AI, and the mountain is the years of innovation by humanity to get there. We don't want all that effort "wokified" to please the easily offended. Or to please the overly obsessed ambassadors of DEI politics such as the founder of Google's "AI Responsibility" initiative, Jen Gennai. Your snarky responses don't make fun reading, btw.
Further, in such a profoundly general utility, there can be no absence of politics, only different politics.
You can clutch your pearls about wokism or PC or whatever all you want, it just means this world is going to leave you behind while you fight a culture war everyone will have forgotten about ten years from now.