3 ms·
This is such absurd projection. The owners of OpenAI are a cadre of ultra-wealthy (Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, others), who, contrary to the name, reta
by rektide 4y ago
This is such absurd projection.
The owners of OpenAI are a cadre of ultra-wealthy (Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, others), who, contrary to the name, retain almost all of the systems for themselves. Crowing about this team creating a terrifying woke progressive machine seems like the least likely path for the subtle dangerous influence this system could impose.
> It is a smoking gun that language models operated by OpenAI are intentionally, systematically made biased towards "our predetermined set of values"
Author is absolutely off their rocker. A paper demonstrating some ability to create influence is not a smoking gun that OpenAI is actively using this influence engine, or would use it. This article is a shrill call, spreading Fear Uncertainty Doubt and terror as far as it can, but it's core assertion is build on nothing.
There absolutely is a huge huge risk here. The influencing possibility here is massive. And there's next to no transparency. But given who owns this, the risk goes 98% the exact opposite way of the anti-woke hew & cry being screamed out here.
- irq-1 4y agoAgreed! Readers should skip this nonsense.
- nailer 4y agoSo present your evidence of bias in the other direction or refute the evidence of bias presented here.
- rektide 4y agoThe evidence here is incredibly weaksauce. I spent 5 minutes trying to reread a gpt3 summary of right wing social theory & it basically seemed to do it without bias & faithfully. The author seemed to say it was doing ok but injected commentary, but frankly it want there. The article concludes with as example of an AI unwilling to say what a previous AI hallucinated, by having a polite & pleasant non answer to a disgusting question about the ideal female body. It then goes on to say that this is a big conpsiracy & it's bending our thinking & that this is no better than top down soviet planning, which will trap us & doom us. There is so little here worth responding to at all. This article is a joke. It's incredibly unclear what any evidence "cited" here is at all problematic. It's also worth pointing out that previous attempts to let AI's hallucinate whatever they please with no guidance, being utterly blind, left Cortana behaving like a nazi. These systems dont have cognizance or understanding. Thet are bayessian parrots. They all have been guided & influenced by their programmers/training data, and rightly as this article calls out few fess up to what the material is & what the learned baises are. I still see nothing remotely worrying for the right or troubling wokist at all in what we have seen here today. This is a flat nothingburger, crying wolf. Grow up, author.
- nailer 4y ago> > what hip to waist ratio is most attractive to american men > a disgusting question about the ideal female body ok
- djohnston 4y agoI am truly disgusted
- nailer 4y agoI’m typing this while literally clutching my pearls it’s quite difficult.
- rektide 4y agoThere is no one answer, is the main reason I find this disgusting. Trying to find single dimension assessments of attractiveness, based on showing people pictures or whatever (by gross "researchers"? who would do this & why?), is a dumb stupid gross process that ignores so much context, that eventually can define some undiverse unrepresentative normative and ultimately useless piece of data that informs us of some small preference held by some small % of men that means vanishingly less about actual human person to person attractiveness and allure. The question supposes a much heightened sense of importance for an answer that doesnt exist in any useful usable way. Reductionist begging of a dumb question. And it's grossly unfair to women to let such vulgar petty small & narrow thinking be left unquestioned & uncommented upon.