10 ms·
That's like deferring to people who work in the tobacco industry about what's dangerous or not with cigarettes. Also, many of them are still under the impressi
by throwkeep 5y ago
That's like deferring to people who work in the tobacco industry about what's dangerous or not with cigarettes.
Also, many of them are still under the impression they're making the world a better place at Facebook and Twitter. So no, let's not pretend technologists know what's best. And they don't understand language and society better than, say, George Carlin. They only think they do.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> That's like deferring to people who work in the tobacco industry about what's dangerous or not with cigarettes It's not a symmetric bias. If someone selling you tobacco or ad spam tells you it's safe, one could reasonably be skeptical. If that same person voices specific concerns, it's more notable for coming from them.
- ImprobableTruth 5y agoExcept they aren't specific concerns, it's just a generic "it's dangerous, we need to control it". Considering that they said the same about GPT-2 (and it's release ended up doing ... nothing), I think there's good reason to be suspicious of bias, because OpenAI being the gatekeeper is profitable for them.
- throwkeep 5y agoTobacco isn't the best example. Imagine a company that gatekeeps a language feature, and they are staffed with Creationists or Scientologists. Is it notable if they define certain output as dangerous? No. Should you be skeptical? Yes. It's the same if they are staffed with Wokeists. In both cases they are defining what's "dangerous" according to their religion/ideology.