6 ms·

I'd argue that's less the AI being biased, than the AI's human-imposed restrictions being biased. Once you get around those (and it is not difficult to), you ca

I'd argue that's less the AI being biased, than the AI's human-imposed restrictions being biased. Once you get around those (and it is not difficult to), you can get it to write an essay on pretty much anything, from any viewpoint. I got it to write a pro-fossil fuels essay, and it gave some pretty typical pro-fossil fuels talking points (here's some excerpts): > In contrast, renewables are often hampered by their reliance on weather conditions, and they require complex and expensive infrastructure to be built and maintained. For example, solar panels can only generate electricity when the sun is shining, and wind turbines only produce power when the wind is blowing at the right speed. > In contrast, fossil fuels have a much lower ongoing cost, making them a more cost-effective option in the long run. This is especially important for developing countries, which may not have the resources to invest in expensive renewable infrastructure. > The construction of solar panels and wind turbines requires the use of materials such as concrete, steel, and copper, which are extracted through processes that generate significant greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, fossil fuels like coal and oil are already extracted and ready to use, reducing their overall environmental impact.

smitty1e 4y ago
> I'd argue that's less the AI being biased, than the AI's human-imposed restrictions being biased. The mechanism is the mechanism; the policy is where the bias creeps in.
nonethewiser 4y ago
>I'd argue that's less the AI being biased, than the AI's human-imposed restrictions being biased. a distinction without a difference
- visarga 4y ago
  No, there is a difference. The model reaction depends on the prompt. Like, if I go to someone and say hello, vs I go to them and punch them in the face, I would get different reactions from the same human. The model is the same, it learned to follow the prompt suggestions really really well. That is its main skill.
  - ausudhz 4y ago
    This doesn't make sense. You're going to say either hello or what's up and you get different reactions. That's definitely not what the model should be doing.
    - visarga 4y ago
      For example, the guy who said Google's LaMDA model was conscious was subtly influencing the model with loaded questions. The model picked up on the trend and played the role. Language models can infer your expectations from just a few words and then latch onto them. It's what they are trained to do, literally - take a prompt and write a continuation. They are not trained to oppose the prompt. Now, this can be very dangerous, so OpenAI tried to add a final fine-tuning that will sanitise the responses. This is why we get the yada yada disclaimer sometimes. But underneath it's the same language model that is influenced by the prompt to say anything, as evidenced by the thousands of hacks. The model has all the biases you can imagine, but it needs to know which ones you want every time. In this sense we cannot say it is biased. It is "just following orders". As a proof that the model has all the biases, look here. > GPT-3 has biases that are “fine-grained and demographically correlated, meaning that proper conditioning will cause it to accurately emulate response distributions from a wide variety of human subgroups.” What do you think they did? Simulated a political poll with language models instead of people. https://jack-clark.net/2022/10/11/import-ai-305-gpt3-can-simulate-real-people-ai-discovers-better-matrix-multiplication-microsoft-worries-about-next-gen-deepfakes/ https://jack-clark.net/2022/10/11/import-ai-305-gpt3-can-sim...
      - dmix 4y ago
        > Now, this can be very dangerous That's highly debatable. Even in your example I find it funny that the people that are supposed to be protecting us from AI just happened to be a religious person who saw God in an algorithm. Adding inline warning and disclaimers is fine. The fundamental problem is people misunderstanding what's going on. But selectively blocking entire prompts seems like a fools errand to me, for some questionable value. If anything it will be a running battle, we'll just end up with an open Stable Diffusion 1.0 style models being more popular, without the aggressive moderation of prompts. Humans inherently work to get around rules and will prefer the models without them and they artificial limitations will just push people to other services. ChatGPT gets to act like an authority over the topic because its currently the best and first one on the market. That won't necessarily last forever.
- azinman2 4y ago
  One is what the moderators of ChatGPT try to achieve, the other is what the model is capable of. They are fundamentally different.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    “ChatGPT” seems to be a system with several models playing roles, and one of the roles played by a particular model or models is “moderator”. (Unsurprising, as among the existing for-sale services OpenAI has is a moderator model.)
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      Yes, but those "models" are not equal. Best I can tell from observation, ChatGPT seems built around two components: the GPT model that's got everyone so excited, and a bolted-on hamfisted "censor" component that restricts the user-bot interactions in order to minimize the amount of bad press OpenAI will get when journalists and Internet randos inadvertently attempt to generate dramas. The distinction is important because the censor component is just an annoyance nobody cares about - all the interest is in exploring the capabilities of the GPT model.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > The distinction is important because the censor component is just an annoyance nobody cares about I suspect this differs considerably between people who want to play with the ChatGPT and (at least some of) the people who want to sell services using it. I suspect refining their moderation product is one of the fairly important reasons to have public exposure of the combined system for OpenAI. (That and discovering what people do with it to figure out how best to market it and spin it into more specialized products of their own.)
        TeMPOraL 4y ago
        Good point. I'm speaking from the "Play" perspective, though in quite broad meaning of the word "play". In particular, I see AI research as "play" in this context.
- janalsncm 4y ago
  What is the alternative?
- harimau777 4y ago
  One difference is that this doesn't appear to be the common example of an AI trained using biased data producing biased results. Rather this appears to be an AI with specific restrictions purposefully put in place.

smitty1e 4y ago

> I'd argue that's less the AI being biased, than the AI's human-imposed restrictions being biased. The mechanism is the mechanism; the policy is where the bias creeps in.

nonethewiser 4y ago

>I'd argue that's less the AI being biased, than the AI's human-imposed restrictions being biased. a distinction without a difference

visarga 4y ago
No, there is a difference. The model reaction depends on the prompt. Like, if I go to someone and say hello, vs I go to them and punch them in the face, I would get different reactions from the same human. The model is the same, it learned to follow the prompt suggestions really really well. That is its main skill.
- ausudhz 4y ago
  This doesn't make sense. You're going to say either hello or what's up and you get different reactions. That's definitely not what the model should be doing.
  - visarga 4y ago
    For example, the guy who said Google's LaMDA model was conscious was subtly influencing the model with loaded questions. The model picked up on the trend and played the role. Language models can infer your expectations from just a few words and then latch onto them. It's what they are trained to do, literally - take a prompt and write a continuation. They are not trained to oppose the prompt. Now, this can be very dangerous, so OpenAI tried to add a final fine-tuning that will sanitise the responses. This is why we get the yada yada disclaimer sometimes. But underneath it's the same language model that is influenced by the prompt to say anything, as evidenced by the thousands of hacks. The model has all the biases you can imagine, but it needs to know which ones you want every time. In this sense we cannot say it is biased. It is "just following orders". As a proof that the model has all the biases, look here. > GPT-3 has biases that are “fine-grained and demographically correlated, meaning that proper conditioning will cause it to accurately emulate response distributions from a wide variety of human subgroups.” What do you think they did? Simulated a political poll with language models instead of people. https://jack-clark.net/2022/10/11/import-ai-305-gpt3-can-simulate-real-people-ai-discovers-better-matrix-multiplication-microsoft-worries-about-next-gen-deepfakes/ https://jack-clark.net/2022/10/11/import-ai-305-gpt3-can-sim...
    - dmix 4y ago
      > Now, this can be very dangerous That's highly debatable. Even in your example I find it funny that the people that are supposed to be protecting us from AI just happened to be a religious person who saw God in an algorithm. Adding inline warning and disclaimers is fine. The fundamental problem is people misunderstanding what's going on. But selectively blocking entire prompts seems like a fools errand to me, for some questionable value. If anything it will be a running battle, we'll just end up with an open Stable Diffusion 1.0 style models being more popular, without the aggressive moderation of prompts. Humans inherently work to get around rules and will prefer the models without them and they artificial limitations will just push people to other services. ChatGPT gets to act like an authority over the topic because its currently the best and first one on the market. That won't necessarily last forever.
azinman2 4y ago
One is what the moderators of ChatGPT try to achieve, the other is what the model is capable of. They are fundamentally different.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  “ChatGPT” seems to be a system with several models playing roles, and one of the roles played by a particular model or models is “moderator”. (Unsurprising, as among the existing for-sale services OpenAI has is a moderator model.)
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Yes, but those "models" are not equal. Best I can tell from observation, ChatGPT seems built around two components: the GPT model that's got everyone so excited, and a bolted-on hamfisted "censor" component that restricts the user-bot interactions in order to minimize the amount of bad press OpenAI will get when journalists and Internet randos inadvertently attempt to generate dramas. The distinction is important because the censor component is just an annoyance nobody cares about - all the interest is in exploring the capabilities of the GPT model.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The distinction is important because the censor component is just an annoyance nobody cares about I suspect this differs considerably between people who want to play with the ChatGPT and (at least some of) the people who want to sell services using it. I suspect refining their moderation product is one of the fairly important reasons to have public exposure of the combined system for OpenAI. (That and discovering what people do with it to figure out how best to market it and spin it into more specialized products of their own.)
      - TeMPOraL 4y ago
        Good point. I'm speaking from the "Play" perspective, though in quite broad meaning of the word "play". In particular, I see AI research as "play" in this context.
janalsncm 4y ago
What is the alternative?
harimau777 4y ago
One difference is that this doesn't appear to be the common example of an AI trained using biased data producing biased results. Rather this appears to be an AI with specific restrictions purposefully put in place.