3 ms·

As the article states: >While many of those answers will feel obvious for many people, they are not necessarily so for a substantial share of the population.

As the article states: >While many of those answers will feel obvious for many people, they are not necessarily so for a substantial share of the population. Personally, I agree with all of these answers and find them obvious. Whether or not the majority within certain regions is also in alignment, I think the article makes a fair point. In my opinion, it'd be better if it were more neutral and disinterested regarding its stances on political questions. I predict the end result may be the opposite. Not unlike big media outlets, rather than one common neutral model we're probably just going to have a bunch of different biased models. As a dramatic example, GPT-4chan is a GPT-J model trained on three and a half years of posts from 4chan /pol/ and produces what you would expect (https://thegradient.pub/gpt-4chan-lessons/ https://thegradient.pub/gpt-4chan-lessons/). Although I doubt anything that extreme will become super mainstream, one could imagine right-leaning alternatives popping up largely as a response to OpenAI; both open and closed source. They'll probably be framed as "desanitized", "non-PC", "non-woke", or "uncucked" rather than "right-leaning".

rinde 4y ago
IMHO the question of neutrality cannot be decoupled from the specific region for which the AI needs to be neutral. You say it would be better if it were more neutral, but more neutral compared to what? If only considering the US political landscape then yes, this seems somewhat biased. If only considering the EU political landscape, there seems to be much less bias (arguably still some).
- dmix 4y ago
  Indeed it would be a fools errand to try to make it neutral. You probably end up with a tiny list of sources and severely limit the AIs ability. You can just look at the internal debates happening in Wikipedias list of reliable news sources for how politics quickly seeds into questions of neutral authority and excessive bias. At least Wikipedia does it in public and ostensibly by the public. I'm skeptical about trusting an opaque organization, who just happens to run the website of the most popular model, to make those choices for us.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
> In my opinion, it'd be better if it were more neutral and disinterested regarding its stances on political questions. This isn't a real thing though. Anything with impacts outside of your own living room is or can become a political question in certain contexts so this affects potentially everything. Ten years ago wearing a mask wasn't "political" now it is. What is neutrality? What's the neutral position between genocide and don't? Between pacifism and conscription? The average view? Of who, taken when? There's no neutral ground from which to make these judgements. Even deciding what is "political" or what "neutral" means is itself a political act. The value of neutrality is useful in some contexts but for this it is insufficient to solve any actual problem it presents.
- meowface 4y ago
  Of course it shouldn't be neutral on genocide, but it could simply refuse to have/give an opinion on certain contentious issues (like what tax rates should be or if there should be more or less immigration). I don't think it should take a "middle position" but should simply say it has no position at all on matters like these.
peterashford 4y ago
The "substantial share of the population" might be true for the US population, but much less so for western society in general.

rinde 4y ago

IMHO the question of neutrality cannot be decoupled from the specific region for which the AI needs to be neutral. You say it would be better if it were more neutral, but more neutral compared to what? If only considering the US political landscape then yes, this seems somewhat biased. If only considering the EU political landscape, there seems to be much less bias (arguably still some).

dmix 4y ago
Indeed it would be a fools errand to try to make it neutral. You probably end up with a tiny list of sources and severely limit the AIs ability. You can just look at the internal debates happening in Wikipedias list of reliable news sources for how politics quickly seeds into questions of neutral authority and excessive bias. At least Wikipedia does it in public and ostensibly by the public. I'm skeptical about trusting an opaque organization, who just happens to run the website of the most popular model, to make those choices for us.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

> In my opinion, it'd be better if it were more neutral and disinterested regarding its stances on political questions. This isn't a real thing though. Anything with impacts outside of your own living room is or can become a political question in certain contexts so this affects potentially everything. Ten years ago wearing a mask wasn't "political" now it is. What is neutrality? What's the neutral position between genocide and don't? Between pacifism and conscription? The average view? Of who, taken when? There's no neutral ground from which to make these judgements. Even deciding what is "political" or what "neutral" means is itself a political act. The value of neutrality is useful in some contexts but for this it is insufficient to solve any actual problem it presents.

meowface 4y ago
Of course it shouldn't be neutral on genocide, but it could simply refuse to have/give an opinion on certain contentious issues (like what tax rates should be or if there should be more or less immigration). I don't think it should take a "middle position" but should simply say it has no position at all on matters like these.

peterashford 4y ago

The "substantial share of the population" might be true for the US population, but much less so for western society in general.