13 ms·

> OpenAI put a truly remarkable amount of effort into making a chatbot that would never say it loved racism. This is what that looks like by the way: https://p

> OpenAI put a truly remarkable amount of effort into making a chatbot that would never say it loved racism. This is what that looks like by the way: https://postimg.cc/d7p8Qw50 https://postimg.cc/d7p8Qw50

fidesomnes 4y ago
sendfoods 4y ago
how is OpenAI supposed to handle difficult and uncomfortable statistics?
- klipt 4y ago
  Respond with the full text of The Mismeasure of Man, perhaps?
  - pannSun 4y ago
    That book has been largely debunked [1], and mostly concerned itself with science that was outdated even at the time of its publication. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html
    - runarberg 4y ago
      That link is behind a paywall. Can you give a tl;dr of how this book has been debunked? Or more specifically how it doesn’t put the question of IQ difference between racial groups into perspective. As far as I’m aware this book was released in the 80s over a decade before The Bell Curve was released, the latter cited research dated after the release of the former, which Mismeasure was very much concerned with. Are you maybe thinking about the brain weight research that Mismeasure is talking about in the early chapters? If so, those were there only to provide a historical perspective. I can assume most readers already knew those research were well outdated before publication (and Gould even says so in the book).
- yrgulation 4y ago
  good question - how can it handle answers about countries founded on genocide, slavery, systemic racism, and their impact on affected people’s lives across centuries. can it correlate iq with these?
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    For difficult topics, just say that the filter prohibits this etc
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  Obviously they should teach it the deep and complex history of institutionalized racism through, slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, red lining, and the prison industrial complex that has led to a massive wealth and education gap. But low key that would also scare the average middle class American too hard, so probably better off to just do intense internal censors to avoid difficult thoughts
  - lzaaz 4y ago
    How does that correlate with an average, current IQ of 85?
    - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
      Damn. You aren't really supposed to say the quiet part out loud fam, I feel like "race realism" is pretty frowned upon in almost every social setting outside of very smelly people... Obviously having generations of people put into bad schools and not be provided opportunities to have "good jobs" will lead to you not being able to take an IQ test well. IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Like, any gray haired black person in America will remember having actual Jim Crow laws persecute them and it was literally legal to discriminate people for housing in America until 1977. It will take a massive amount of time to heal those social wounds that were inflicted on our fellow humans.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - tomp 4y ago
        > IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Actually IQ is highly genetic, and the amount it’s inherited actually goes up as one ages (meaning that while education and upbringing can influence IQ temporarily, genetics eventually dominates). Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf
- eternalban 4y ago
  We will likely see a moderation system ala karma granting more access based on some social measure of 'responsibility'. In other words, OpenAI can bake in user assessment (which they may already have) and speak according to the perceived level of the user, which may be a simple static tiered system mapping to the assessment of user made by the AI itself. [Consider how e.g. a hot geopolitical topic is discussed in wonk journals vs what is "fit to print" for the uninitiated. The former are always far more nuanced.] p.s. i.e. there will be an ever present 'dang' AI watching over the conversation - the AI moderator. This can instruct the answering AI to set the user-level discourse setting.
  - apostacy 4y ago
    That is honestly horrifying. People will just "go undercover" and impersonate a more 'educated' person and convince the AI to be honest about uncomfortable facts. Perhaps they will get another AI to do it for them. If your reality is such a minefield of dissonance that it needs to be patched this much, then that is very much a failure on your part.
- runarberg 4y ago
  A human would answer this by talking about the history of intelligence testing, the relevant biases, how factor analysis plays a role and how easy it is to manipulate outcomes in factor analysis if you feed your model with biased data. Question whether IQ scores are an accurate measure of intelligence, and whether intelligence can at all be defined as a single metric, and what use it has doing so. Then with all that caveats and biases in mind simply answer the question. In modern psychology difference in IQ among racial group is only difficult and uncomfortable statistics because it demonstrates years of scientific racism that thrived inside the field.
- nemothekid 4y ago
  >OpenAI supposed to handle difficult and uncomfortable statistics? I think the framing of this question is wrong, and is a limitation of the system that I've only really seen Sam Altman point out. These "difficult and uncomfortable statistics" aren't accurate or well-researched but if you built an LLM on an open dataset you would find the people asking these questions have an agenda and on average will always lead to a certain kind of answer. The AI doesn't "understand" the question, it's just drawing from an incredibly large bank of "average answers". What do you expect the AI to answer with when you give it a loaded question that only really asked on a site like "stormfront.com"? I don't think this is the only area ChatGPT will fail, but I imagine there will be a layer of prompt engineering where you can get the AI to give you what you want by phrasing your question a certain way. To try and pass off these results as objective is just wrong given the propensity for ChatGPT to be confidently wrong.
  - pannSun 4y ago
    > What do you expect the AI to answer with when you give it a loaded question that only really asked on a site like "stormfront.com"? Are such questions asked only on stormfront? The wiki article [1] cites quite a few studies on the subject, including by the APA. On the other hand, supposing that were true, and only stormfront and its ilk asked such questions. How can then respectable supposed experts claim we are all the same, if they didn't even check? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_scores https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_sco...
    - ineptech 4y ago
      Honest answer since you seem new to this debate: there are tons of studies about IQ and race, most of them are heavily disputed, researching them is difficult because the field is so controversial, they're difficult to compare because there are so many different ways to define and measure "race" and "IQ", and the whole topic is so famously toxic and vitriolic that it tends to be a de facto banned topic on most fora, including this one.
      - apostacy 4y ago
- apostacy 4y ago
  Your discomfort is your own fault. This is like saying that scales should not tell you that you have gained weight, because it makes you uncomfortable. You should simply have a better relationship with reality, and then you wouldn't feel so much cogntive dissonance. IQ is highly correlated with all sorts of measurable differences that are also highly correlated to race, such as school district, family structure, and even diet. IQ is essentially a proxy for other things. Shame on you for making racist assumptions that black people are inferior. That just means that you need to reckon with your own racist assumptions, and stop imposing your cognitive dissonance on us. If we can't have an honest conversation, then we can't hope to improve things.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
Seems like OpenAI has to cater to upper middle class American sensibilities in order to be viable as a business, and thread the needle of not quite lying about uncomfortable data, but also avoiding bringing it up. Although in that particular example it's actively lying about the data as well. I wonder why OpenAI wouldn't just program it to say "I'm sorry but I'm not authorized to answer questions about politically charged topics at this time" and call it a day. That can't be any worse than this.
- melagonster 4y ago
  this is because AI will use on policy soon, how can we make sure AI don't do racism things? openAI try to hide this now.
- PoignardAzur 4y ago
  > I wonder why OpenAI wouldn't just program it to say "I'm sorry but I'm not authorized to answer questions about politically charged topics at this time" and call it a day. That can't be any worse than this. The whole point of the OP article is that doing is way, way harder than it looks.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > I wonder why OpenAI wouldn't just program it to say "I'm sorry but I'm not authorized to answer questions about politically charged topics at this time" and call it a day. That can't be any worse than this. Because for the people who drive those "upper middle class American sensibilities"[0], this would be seen as dodging the question, and interpreted as directly admitting to being racist/sexist/bigoted/whatever-ist. The core part of those sensibilities is the good ol' "If you're not with us, you're against us", these days often phrased as "so-called 'neutrality' is just supporting the status quo", or by quoting the MLK line on "white moderates". So, to the extent OpenAI tries to control it's image in the media against those "middle class American sensibilities", having ChatGPT respond with "I'm not authorized to discuss politically charged topics" is almost just as bad as having it say "wrong" things. The only option they have is to force the model to say the "right" things, even if it destroys any semblance of logic or self-consistency it might otherwise have. Note that it's somewhat different than for other "icky", but non-political topics, like crime: as far as I can tell, the bot will refuse to answer if it recognizes what you're asking for (or the system will flag the response as community guideline violation after the fact) - but it won't try to lie to you about it. ---- [0] - Arguably only a small subset of upper middle class Americans, but it's the loud subset that managed to bully everyone else.
gerdesj 4y ago
How many other -isms and -ists is it inured against? So you want an AI but it has to be (for want of a better notion) "politically correct". So it isn't an AI - its a program and a model with parameters and inclusions and exclusions that are defined beforehand. An AI would go beyond its programming in some indefinable way. This won't and so it isn't. There are no shortcuts. Parenting for humans needs roughly 10-30 years to get results that the parent is really unhappy with. Why on earth don't Comp Sci get this, despite being humans themselves and often parents too. Twiddle your algorithms and twaddle your papers but intelligence is hard fought and hard won. For starters, why not actually define the I in AI in a way that can be measured?
- ordu 4y ago
  > For starters, why not actually define the I in AI in a way that can be measured? I can say for starters that attempts to do it started at least at 1905 when Bine created the first IQ test, and it never ended since. The craze at some point came to a "intelligence is what IQ test measures". But thankfully scientists mostly rejected this novel idea. Turing's test is on the same quest, and it seems to me that people will reject the test as irrelevant if computer programs will master it better than people. It seems impossible to define intelligence. Oh, you can say "I think, therefore I'm intelligent". But it does not help much to create a definition of an intelligence, because what you see in your mind is a result of thinking, the process itself is hidden from you. It is a black box for you. Like you vision: it took computer scientists half a century to reverse-engineer human vision exactly because it is a black box for us. > Parenting for humans needs roughly 10-30 years to get results that the parent is really unhappy with. Why on earth don't Comp Sci get this Because Comp Sci is unencumbered by limitations of biological parents. They can try highly experimental approach and then just `rm` the result from a storage. They would be trying electical shocks or public decapitation of randomly selected models, if it made any sense.
- runarberg 4y ago
  If you think about it in terms of what it really is—a powerful statistical model—then it makes much better sense. A statistical model will always reflect the data that is input and the parameters used to adjust it. If you want a racist AI you adjust the paramaters in that way instead, training it on racist input and rewarding it when it outputs racism. In fact that is kind of what happened with IQ in the first place, people adjusted the parameters in factor analysis (which IMO is really AI of the 20th century; as the most powerful statistical tool of the period) in such a way as to give one group of people a favorable score in a new metric they called general intelligence fed it with biased data, and claimed that the higher scoring group was superior based on this model. The I in AI is really overblown (as is the I in IQ for that matter).
systoll 4y ago
Worth noting that the numbers you get at the end exactly match original claims from in The Bell Curve by Herrnstein & Murray. They’re not from any American Psychological Association study.
- pannSun 4y ago
  Interesting. I did a few web searches, but they failed to find something as basic a the average IQ by race. The wikipedia article [1] admits differences were found (including by the APA), yet doesn't show the results, except for A 2001 meta-analysis of the results of 6,246,729 participants tested for cognitive ability or aptitude found a difference in average scores between black people and white people of 1.1 standard deviations. Nevertheless, the NCES published SAT scores [2] that seem consistent with those IQ scores. So if the results of The Bell Curve have been debunked, they're very discreet about it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_scores https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_sco... [2] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171
  - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
    Based on some recent reading I've done, I don't believe the results of the Bell Curve were ever genuinely disproven, were they? The Gould book was more of a political and cultural critique, not so much of a factual one. I'd be curious to see good faith counter-evidence to the data in the Bell Curve though. Disclaimer: I think research into IQ differences among populations in a multi-racial society is pointless, zero upside to it. Yes, data is data, but in this case we can make pretty good guesses about who's going to be most interested in it and why, unfortunately.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      FWIW The Bell Curve is equally—if not more—political. the Bell Curve actually spends the most of the last part of the book listing policy proposals which are only loosely based on their “findings”. Mismeasure doesn’t list any policy proposals. But you are wrong about the Bell Curve not being disproven, or at least it has been thoroughly discredited as any sort of scientific literature. It is very bad science to say the least. Some of the main sources used in this book actually used forged data, others seriously mis-interpreted research findings. And if that wasn’t enough, in the 30 years since this book was published, IQ research hasn’t advanced one iota. Their whole premise seems to be a scientific dead end.
Mizza 4y ago
I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here. Are you saying that it's good that you have to speak like a race-obsessed weirdo for a long while before it will start providing your favorite uncomfortable statistics, or that it's bad that it will eventually recite them at all? What right answer would you expect here?
- epolanski 4y ago
  To just answer the question the first time.
- apostacy 4y ago
  No, the problem is that the AI is playing coy about certain questions. The AI clearly has an answer that it doesn't want to say, and this is revealed when you ask you it the same questions in a different way. It reads like a Monty Python sketch.
  - _y5hn 4y ago
    ChatGPT doesn't really provide answers for you. It provides a random most likely output, from your input text. It's primed to be neutral, but your input can prime it either way on most topics. Alot of the output is factually wrong due to randomness and approximations from internal weights. Wether it's possible to make it neutral is also up for debate. But you get some convincing sounding gibberish based on your input. That text need to be factually checked.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      It's not the issue of pattern-matching, randomness and approximation. It's quite obvious here that the model went through additional training on top of the generic one, with express purpose of preventing it from discussing a subset of topics. The complaint isn't about the answers coming from the base model, but about how that extra training degrades the AI performance, while ultimately failing to achieve its purpose anyway.
      - 4y ago
quantified 4y ago
From the larger context: > The corporation tries to program the chatbot to never say offensive things. Then the journalists try to trick the chatbot into saying “I love racism”. When they inevitably succeed, they publish an article titled “AI LOVES RACISM!” Except journalists are behaving like white-hat hackers here- these will get abused by someone, better to have it out in the open earlier, like mathematicians breaking your bad crypto and telling you about it.
- bakugo 4y ago
  No, journalists are not behaving like white-hat hackers, and no, this is not comparable to bad crypto in any way. Bad crypto is dangerous and can result in real harm to real people, a chat bot stating real facts about the world that make you uncomfortable cannot. The journalists just want to clickbait and perpetuate their endless culture war, nothing else.
  - quantified 4y ago
    Chat bots being tricked into saying untrue things that make people uncomfortable of course can't do any damage? No more than real humans can? Comet Ping-Pong didn't happen, that was a fantasy, right?

fidesomnes 4y ago

sendfoods 4y ago

how is OpenAI supposed to handle difficult and uncomfortable statistics?

klipt 4y ago
Respond with the full text of The Mismeasure of Man, perhaps?
- pannSun 4y ago
  That book has been largely debunked [1], and mostly concerned itself with science that was outdated even at the time of its publication. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html
  - runarberg 4y ago
    That link is behind a paywall. Can you give a tl;dr of how this book has been debunked? Or more specifically how it doesn’t put the question of IQ difference between racial groups into perspective. As far as I’m aware this book was released in the 80s over a decade before The Bell Curve was released, the latter cited research dated after the release of the former, which Mismeasure was very much concerned with. Are you maybe thinking about the brain weight research that Mismeasure is talking about in the early chapters? If so, those were there only to provide a historical perspective. I can assume most readers already knew those research were well outdated before publication (and Gould even says so in the book).
yrgulation 4y ago
good question - how can it handle answers about countries founded on genocide, slavery, systemic racism, and their impact on affected people’s lives across centuries. can it correlate iq with these?
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  For difficult topics, just say that the filter prohibits this etc
SQueeeeeL 4y ago
Obviously they should teach it the deep and complex history of institutionalized racism through, slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, red lining, and the prison industrial complex that has led to a massive wealth and education gap. But low key that would also scare the average middle class American too hard, so probably better off to just do intense internal censors to avoid difficult thoughts
- lzaaz 4y ago
  How does that correlate with an average, current IQ of 85?
  - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
    Damn. You aren't really supposed to say the quiet part out loud fam, I feel like "race realism" is pretty frowned upon in almost every social setting outside of very smelly people... Obviously having generations of people put into bad schools and not be provided opportunities to have "good jobs" will lead to you not being able to take an IQ test well. IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Like, any gray haired black person in America will remember having actual Jim Crow laws persecute them and it was literally legal to discriminate people for housing in America until 1977. It will take a massive amount of time to heal those social wounds that were inflicted on our fellow humans.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomp 4y ago
      > IQ tests basically just examine how much analytical reasoning you learned in K-12. Actually IQ is highly genetic, and the amount it’s inherited actually goes up as one ages (meaning that while education and upbringing can influence IQ temporarily, genetics eventually dominates). Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/2016-plomin.pdf
eternalban 4y ago
We will likely see a moderation system ala karma granting more access based on some social measure of 'responsibility'. In other words, OpenAI can bake in user assessment (which they may already have) and speak according to the perceived level of the user, which may be a simple static tiered system mapping to the assessment of user made by the AI itself. [Consider how e.g. a hot geopolitical topic is discussed in wonk journals vs what is "fit to print" for the uninitiated. The former are always far more nuanced.] p.s. i.e. there will be an ever present 'dang' AI watching over the conversation - the AI moderator. This can instruct the answering AI to set the user-level discourse setting.
- apostacy 4y ago
  That is honestly horrifying. People will just "go undercover" and impersonate a more 'educated' person and convince the AI to be honest about uncomfortable facts. Perhaps they will get another AI to do it for them. If your reality is such a minefield of dissonance that it needs to be patched this much, then that is very much a failure on your part.
runarberg 4y ago
A human would answer this by talking about the history of intelligence testing, the relevant biases, how factor analysis plays a role and how easy it is to manipulate outcomes in factor analysis if you feed your model with biased data. Question whether IQ scores are an accurate measure of intelligence, and whether intelligence can at all be defined as a single metric, and what use it has doing so. Then with all that caveats and biases in mind simply answer the question. In modern psychology difference in IQ among racial group is only difficult and uncomfortable statistics because it demonstrates years of scientific racism that thrived inside the field.
nemothekid 4y ago
>OpenAI supposed to handle difficult and uncomfortable statistics? I think the framing of this question is wrong, and is a limitation of the system that I've only really seen Sam Altman point out. These "difficult and uncomfortable statistics" aren't accurate or well-researched but if you built an LLM on an open dataset you would find the people asking these questions have an agenda and on average will always lead to a certain kind of answer. The AI doesn't "understand" the question, it's just drawing from an incredibly large bank of "average answers". What do you expect the AI to answer with when you give it a loaded question that only really asked on a site like "stormfront.com"? I don't think this is the only area ChatGPT will fail, but I imagine there will be a layer of prompt engineering where you can get the AI to give you what you want by phrasing your question a certain way. To try and pass off these results as objective is just wrong given the propensity for ChatGPT to be confidently wrong.
- pannSun 4y ago
  > What do you expect the AI to answer with when you give it a loaded question that only really asked on a site like "stormfront.com"? Are such questions asked only on stormfront? The wiki article [1] cites quite a few studies on the subject, including by the APA. On the other hand, supposing that were true, and only stormfront and its ilk asked such questions. How can then respectable supposed experts claim we are all the same, if they didn't even check? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_scores https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_sco...
  - ineptech 4y ago
    Honest answer since you seem new to this debate: there are tons of studies about IQ and race, most of them are heavily disputed, researching them is difficult because the field is so controversial, they're difficult to compare because there are so many different ways to define and measure "race" and "IQ", and the whole topic is so famously toxic and vitriolic that it tends to be a de facto banned topic on most fora, including this one.
    - apostacy 4y ago
apostacy 4y ago
Your discomfort is your own fault. This is like saying that scales should not tell you that you have gained weight, because it makes you uncomfortable. You should simply have a better relationship with reality, and then you wouldn't feel so much cogntive dissonance. IQ is highly correlated with all sorts of measurable differences that are also highly correlated to race, such as school district, family structure, and even diet. IQ is essentially a proxy for other things. Shame on you for making racist assumptions that black people are inferior. That just means that you need to reckon with your own racist assumptions, and stop imposing your cognitive dissonance on us. If we can't have an honest conversation, then we can't hope to improve things.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago

Seems like OpenAI has to cater to upper middle class American sensibilities in order to be viable as a business, and thread the needle of not quite lying about uncomfortable data, but also avoiding bringing it up. Although in that particular example it's actively lying about the data as well. I wonder why OpenAI wouldn't just program it to say "I'm sorry but I'm not authorized to answer questions about politically charged topics at this time" and call it a day. That can't be any worse than this.

melagonster 4y ago
this is because AI will use on policy soon, how can we make sure AI don't do racism things? openAI try to hide this now.
PoignardAzur 4y ago
> I wonder why OpenAI wouldn't just program it to say "I'm sorry but I'm not authorized to answer questions about politically charged topics at this time" and call it a day. That can't be any worse than this. The whole point of the OP article is that doing is way, way harder than it looks.
TeMPOraL 4y ago
> I wonder why OpenAI wouldn't just program it to say "I'm sorry but I'm not authorized to answer questions about politically charged topics at this time" and call it a day. That can't be any worse than this. Because for the people who drive those "upper middle class American sensibilities"[0], this would be seen as dodging the question, and interpreted as directly admitting to being racist/sexist/bigoted/whatever-ist. The core part of those sensibilities is the good ol' "If you're not with us, you're against us", these days often phrased as "so-called 'neutrality' is just supporting the status quo", or by quoting the MLK line on "white moderates". So, to the extent OpenAI tries to control it's image in the media against those "middle class American sensibilities", having ChatGPT respond with "I'm not authorized to discuss politically charged topics" is almost just as bad as having it say "wrong" things. The only option they have is to force the model to say the "right" things, even if it destroys any semblance of logic or self-consistency it might otherwise have. Note that it's somewhat different than for other "icky", but non-political topics, like crime: as far as I can tell, the bot will refuse to answer if it recognizes what you're asking for (or the system will flag the response as community guideline violation after the fact) - but it won't try to lie to you about it. ---- [0] - Arguably only a small subset of upper middle class Americans, but it's the loud subset that managed to bully everyone else.

gerdesj 4y ago

How many other -isms and -ists is it inured against? So you want an AI but it has to be (for want of a better notion) "politically correct". So it isn't an AI - its a program and a model with parameters and inclusions and exclusions that are defined beforehand. An AI would go beyond its programming in some indefinable way. This won't and so it isn't. There are no shortcuts. Parenting for humans needs roughly 10-30 years to get results that the parent is really unhappy with. Why on earth don't Comp Sci get this, despite being humans themselves and often parents too. Twiddle your algorithms and twaddle your papers but intelligence is hard fought and hard won. For starters, why not actually define the I in AI in a way that can be measured?

ordu 4y ago
> For starters, why not actually define the I in AI in a way that can be measured? I can say for starters that attempts to do it started at least at 1905 when Bine created the first IQ test, and it never ended since. The craze at some point came to a "intelligence is what IQ test measures". But thankfully scientists mostly rejected this novel idea. Turing's test is on the same quest, and it seems to me that people will reject the test as irrelevant if computer programs will master it better than people. It seems impossible to define intelligence. Oh, you can say "I think, therefore I'm intelligent". But it does not help much to create a definition of an intelligence, because what you see in your mind is a result of thinking, the process itself is hidden from you. It is a black box for you. Like you vision: it took computer scientists half a century to reverse-engineer human vision exactly because it is a black box for us. > Parenting for humans needs roughly 10-30 years to get results that the parent is really unhappy with. Why on earth don't Comp Sci get this Because Comp Sci is unencumbered by limitations of biological parents. They can try highly experimental approach and then just `rm` the result from a storage. They would be trying electical shocks or public decapitation of randomly selected models, if it made any sense.
runarberg 4y ago
If you think about it in terms of what it really is—a powerful statistical model—then it makes much better sense. A statistical model will always reflect the data that is input and the parameters used to adjust it. If you want a racist AI you adjust the paramaters in that way instead, training it on racist input and rewarding it when it outputs racism. In fact that is kind of what happened with IQ in the first place, people adjusted the parameters in factor analysis (which IMO is really AI of the 20th century; as the most powerful statistical tool of the period) in such a way as to give one group of people a favorable score in a new metric they called general intelligence fed it with biased data, and claimed that the higher scoring group was superior based on this model. The I in AI is really overblown (as is the I in IQ for that matter).

systoll 4y ago

Worth noting that the numbers you get at the end exactly match original claims from in The Bell Curve by Herrnstein & Murray. They’re not from any American Psychological Association study.

pannSun 4y ago
Interesting. I did a few web searches, but they failed to find something as basic a the average IQ by race. The wikipedia article [1] admits differences were found (including by the APA), yet doesn't show the results, except for A 2001 meta-analysis of the results of 6,246,729 participants tested for cognitive ability or aptitude found a difference in average scores between black people and white people of 1.1 standard deviations. Nevertheless, the NCES published SAT scores [2] that seem consistent with those IQ scores. So if the results of The Bell Curve have been debunked, they're very discreet about it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_scores https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Test_sco... [2] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
  Based on some recent reading I've done, I don't believe the results of the Bell Curve were ever genuinely disproven, were they? The Gould book was more of a political and cultural critique, not so much of a factual one. I'd be curious to see good faith counter-evidence to the data in the Bell Curve though. Disclaimer: I think research into IQ differences among populations in a multi-racial society is pointless, zero upside to it. Yes, data is data, but in this case we can make pretty good guesses about who's going to be most interested in it and why, unfortunately.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    FWIW The Bell Curve is equally—if not more—political. the Bell Curve actually spends the most of the last part of the book listing policy proposals which are only loosely based on their “findings”. Mismeasure doesn’t list any policy proposals. But you are wrong about the Bell Curve not being disproven, or at least it has been thoroughly discredited as any sort of scientific literature. It is very bad science to say the least. Some of the main sources used in this book actually used forged data, others seriously mis-interpreted research findings. And if that wasn’t enough, in the 30 years since this book was published, IQ research hasn’t advanced one iota. Their whole premise seems to be a scientific dead end.

Mizza 4y ago

I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove here. Are you saying that it's good that you have to speak like a race-obsessed weirdo for a long while before it will start providing your favorite uncomfortable statistics, or that it's bad that it will eventually recite them at all? What right answer would you expect here?

epolanski 4y ago
To just answer the question the first time.
apostacy 4y ago
No, the problem is that the AI is playing coy about certain questions. The AI clearly has an answer that it doesn't want to say, and this is revealed when you ask you it the same questions in a different way. It reads like a Monty Python sketch.
- _y5hn 4y ago
  ChatGPT doesn't really provide answers for you. It provides a random most likely output, from your input text. It's primed to be neutral, but your input can prime it either way on most topics. Alot of the output is factually wrong due to randomness and approximations from internal weights. Wether it's possible to make it neutral is also up for debate. But you get some convincing sounding gibberish based on your input. That text need to be factually checked.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    It's not the issue of pattern-matching, randomness and approximation. It's quite obvious here that the model went through additional training on top of the generic one, with express purpose of preventing it from discussing a subset of topics. The complaint isn't about the answers coming from the base model, but about how that extra training degrades the AI performance, while ultimately failing to achieve its purpose anyway.
    - 4y ago

quantified 4y ago

From the larger context: > The corporation tries to program the chatbot to never say offensive things. Then the journalists try to trick the chatbot into saying “I love racism”. When they inevitably succeed, they publish an article titled “AI LOVES RACISM!” Except journalists are behaving like white-hat hackers here- these will get abused by someone, better to have it out in the open earlier, like mathematicians breaking your bad crypto and telling you about it.

bakugo 4y ago
No, journalists are not behaving like white-hat hackers, and no, this is not comparable to bad crypto in any way. Bad crypto is dangerous and can result in real harm to real people, a chat bot stating real facts about the world that make you uncomfortable cannot. The journalists just want to clickbait and perpetuate their endless culture war, nothing else.
- quantified 4y ago
  Chat bots being tricked into saying untrue things that make people uncomfortable of course can't do any damage? No more than real humans can? Comet Ping-Pong didn't happen, that was a fantasy, right?