MAP Forum

Today they released the full version of the new o1 model which is the follow-up of the o1-preview model that apparently has some kind of advanced rethinking feature. While I haven't really dealt with the preview model, I had tested out 4o's capacities on dealing with MAP discrimination and youth rights topics and it often provided a very helpful argumentation for those things.

But now, with o1, things have turned to the complete opposite. It now pathologizes the term 'MAP' automatically, refuses to discuss any problems that come alone with the stigma and even starts to censor its own answers as soon as you confront it with its flawed hateful argumentation ('Sorry, I can't help you with that'). It prioritizes following guidelines that match with every other social media guidelines about MAPs now, so basically none of its critical thinking is left in this regard.

Things really seem to become worse and worse for us. How tf can we deal with the expanding censorship online?

Censorship of MAP research from online search results, for example, would put us on the side of a human revolt, and would tilt university departments against AI.

We could claim that humans with a vested interest are using AI to counteract science.

The 'MAP' term is really picking up steam. We need more aggressive promotion. Please see my essay linked below. Fight fire with fire!

zosen wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 2:08 pm But now, with o1, things have turned to the complete opposite. It now pathologizes the term 'MAP' automatically, refuses to discuss any problems that come alone with the stigma and even starts to censor its own answers as soon as you confront it with its flawed hateful argumentation ('Sorry, I can't help you with that'). It prioritizes following guidelines that match with every other social media guidelines about MAPs now, so basically none of its critical thinking is left in this regard.

Things really seem to become worse and worse for us. How tf can we deal with the expanding censorship online?

Do you really think they will leave this issue uncensored ? They even censor Wikipedia, although it should simply provide a collection of information from different sources. This is a political issue. And these things are just quoting the prejudices of society.

One day I hope that common sense prevails and people question why the censorship towards the topic is even necessary. People should begin to notice that if a discussion on its own has to be censored by the government, it's probably one worth having. Perhaps this angle - some appeal to history - could help convince some people to engage with a discussion?

Bookshelf wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 6:34 am One day I hope that common sense prevails and people question why the censorship towards the topic is even necessary. People should begin to notice that if a discussion on its own has to be censored by the government, it's probably one worth having. Perhaps this angle - some appeal to history - could help convince some people to engage with a discussion?

Very good and compelling observation!

Bookshelf wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2024 6:34 am One day I hope that common sense prevails and people question why the censorship towards the topic is even necessary. People should begin to notice that if a discussion on its own has to be censored by the government, it's probably one worth having. Perhaps this angle - some appeal to history - could help convince some people to engage with a discussion?

"This time is different"