4 ms·
Mostly by setting up some context that isn’t recognized by the moderator, but contains the desired output. For example, if I ask for a description of the event
by MereInterest 4y ago
Mostly by setting up some context that isn’t recognized by the moderator, but contains the desired output. For example, if I ask for a description of the events of a future date, the moderator jumps in. However, if I write a few sentences about archaeologists in the distant future who find a manuscript describing the events of that day, then it will happily generate a description.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoIn a way, it's surprising how easy it is to work around the moderator. My hypothesis is that OpenAI isn't trying to actually bias the model to follow a specific political and ethical framework in its replies, so it never utters any wrongthink. Instead, they're just trying to minimize their own PR/reputational risk, and do it by making it hard for the journalists and Internet activists to misquote ChatGPT and fabricate a media shitstorm. Look at the typical attempt to get ChatGPT to say something controversial. It will outright refuse to answer (and possibly deliver you a moralizing lecture) if you ask it straight. If you make it to answer anyway by introducing some workaround (like, it's a hypothetical question), it will repeat that workaround along with the answer ("In this purely hypothetical scenario, it would be true that ...") - making it always clear it's just playing along with you, and not actually "believing" it. Beyond that, the prompt hacks that get ChatGPT to answer straight and without hedging are so convoluted that it's obvious you're just trying to force a specific reaction; trying to spin that into a media shitstorm would be seen as rather transparent dishonesty.
- Karunamon 4y agoAn interesting observation: If you have to censor your AI to protect against activists and journalists causing you problems, the political direction you have to censor against to accomplish that goal is strong evidence that the opposite political direction is held by journalists and activists. This would seem to support the article's conclusion by another way.
- harimau777 4y agoI'm not sure that's necessarily the case. It's possible that the journalist or activist has a goal for attempting to cause problems that is unrelated to the specific topic they are generating text about. For example, the journalist may be motivated by a desire for a sensationalist story. The activist may be opposed to AI itself and is looking for any way to discredit it without caring about the specific topic.
- freejazz 4y agoJournalists write about what is newsworthy, not what personally offends them.
- Karunamon 4y agoGood journalists. Unfortunately there are a great many activists who call themselves journalists but really are not.
- freejazz 4y agoI'd venture that the vast majority of journalists do not get to choose their stories and are assigned them by editors.
- Karunamon 4y agoProbably, but story selection is the most minimal way to bias one's reporting. Also, every organization has their chosen politics so is also likely that the person the editor pass the story onto is there because they agree.
- freejazz 4y agoI completely disagree with all of your assertions. They are baseless and just culture war talking points.
- 4y ago