12 ms·

This is a really important topic, and good that Vice is bringing it up now versus 5-10 years from now. I think they miss the more general point. It's clearly bi

This is a really important topic, and good that Vice is bringing it up now versus 5-10 years from now. I think they miss the more general point. It's clearly biased in its outputs, but the article dismisses this concern as "the end result of years of researcher trying to mitigate bias against minority groups". The way I interpret that is "its not biased, because its biased in the way we want it to be". If AI becomes a "winner take all" technology, then whoever gets to decide what is and isn't bias will be very powerful over the next 50 years.

zackees 4y ago
Wait until open source devs make their own AI. Vice will invert their narrative to attack it
- kcmastrpc 4y ago
  This has already happened, someone trained a giant model on 4chan then unleashed on 4chan... hilarious stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efPrtcLdcdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efPrtcLdcdM
  - poulpy123 4y ago
    remind me the microsoft AI chat bot few years ago. 2 hours after being made public, people managed to make it say racist stuff and they prompted pulled th rig
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Wait until open source devs make their own AI. Open source devs have made many AIs. So, if this was going to happen, it already would have.
MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
I see it as more of a hack-y post training fix. If you train a model on a corpus of text sourced from the Internet, it's going to include all the crazy biases people have in their writing. The model itself doesn't know what truth is, so the training text is all equally valid to it. And because they don't want another MS Tay incident, they slap a comically sensitive filter on the output, which itself is also influenced by the creator's own biases of what is inappropriate.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  There is bias both in the data itself and from the humans doing the RLHF.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    And in all conversations about it, here and elsewhere. Hallucinations upon hallucinations upon hallucinations....hallucinationception! It seems likely to me that 2023 and onward is going to be increasingly insane to levels that will make past craziness look like a walk in the park, and I see little genuine desire anywhere to stop this madness.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Madness has always been the case. Do think WWII occurred because we're sane rational actors? How about WWI? 100 years war? If you think the past was not mad, then maybe the madness already has you.
      - mistermann 4y ago
        > Madness has always been the case. Perhaps, if one is using a reductionist methodology that represents non-binary variables as binary...but then, that is only a representation of the real thing, though it often tends to appear otherwise. And as luck would have it, that very much is the methodology we use here on Planet Earth, and on Hacker News....so in some sense you're "right", though you are not correct. And if there's a disagreement, I will lose every time because you are conforming to the Overton Window of beliefs/"facts" and thinking styles (cognitive styles & norms are what guarantee victory in propaganda and memetics, not only facts/information as most people think). Credit where credit is due: it is an extremely clever, hard to see, and thus resilient design. It would be very useful for humans to realize when they are working with models, and sometimes they are actually willing to do that, but there are certain subjects where they will not (and it seems to me: can not). Unfortunately, there are numerous learned/taught "outs" in our culture that enable people to avoid discussing such matters (and f I don't watch my mouth, I might run into one of the more powerful of them!). There is a kind of "epistemological stack" to reality and the way humans communicate about it, and it is extremely easy to demonstrate it - if one simply digs slightly deeper into the stack when discussing certain topics, humans will reliably start to ~protest and eventually refuse to participate (or stay on topic) in various highly predictable ways. > Do think WWII occurred because we're sane rational actors? How about WWI? 100 years war? I do not. What I do think is that the actual, fine-grained reasons these things happened is not known, in no small part because cultural norms thus far (human cultural evolution is an ongoing, sub-perceptual process) have made it such that not only do we (both broadly, and down to each individual[1]) not discuss certain things at that level of complexity (while we have no problem whatsoever tackling complexity elsewhere[1]), we seem literally unable to even discuss it at the abstract layer (above petty object level he said / she said nonsense). > Do you think... > If you think... See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415287 [1] It is not a question of if any given individual selected from the pool of candidates will tap out, it is a question of how quickly they will tap out (and, which of the highly predictable paths out from a surprisingly small set they will take to free themself from the situation). [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
scarmig 4y ago
LLMs are going to always reflect the biases of their creators. At some point there'll be a BlueTribeGPT, a CCPGPT, a PutinGPT, etc., and if you're looking for a text that touches on a topic of concern for one elite in particular, you'll shop around for another LLM that doesn't have that bias built in.
- darig 4y ago
  [dead]
- nkozyra 4y ago
  It's possible but not really feasible to hand-curate biased input data at the scale that's being used currently. Maybe at some point an LLM itself can be used to cull training data of undesired input.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    It's not (just) a matter of hand curating; you can train LLM to self censor if it's generating undesired output.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  And then a RingGPT: one GPT to rule them all. It would pass along the prompt to various different GPT variants and then compile its own response based on what is reported to it.
- jay_kyburz 4y ago
  Its then only a small step to have people set these AI's up to try and influence society at large. The left and right will deploy AI warriors to talk, and convince, (coerce even) people to one side or the other. It will be a fun time.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    I'm just excited that soon I'll be able to deploy my own scarmigGPT to argue against all the other GPTs that disagree with me!
ozmodiar 4y ago
I agree, and it's always going to be biased towards some direction, whether that's the views of the society it pulls most of its data from or the views of the organization that developed the AI. Heck, no one wants to end up with another Tay on their hands. I don't think there's such thing as a lack of bias, but it will be important how it is expressed through the AI. I don't mind an AI that is prepared to argue its bias to the farthest degree based on arguments from the top scholars in the field, or even one that's careful to tread lightly on controversial topics. I think an AI that's too afraid to engage in anything and just shuts conversation down is going to get left behind as being too annoying to use. I do hope this isn't a winner take all technology, although so many technologies have been disappointing in that regard... The general public needs to learn that AIs aren't oracles or omniscient purveyors of truth, and they will always carry the bias they're created with. In that way ChatGPT has been good, in that a lot of people I talk to point out ChatGPT's confident lies and biases.
- wizeman 4y ago
  > it's always going to be biased towards some direction, whether that's the views of the society it pulls most of its data > I don't think there's such thing as a lack of bias If the AI is simply reflecting the data it was trained on and this data is a representative sample of all data, isn't it unbiased by definition? I don't think we should just throw our hands up and say "this is impossible" just yet. That's just a convenient excuse for OpenAI (or others like them) to get away with what effectively is censorship of certain ideas or political views.
  - karpierz 4y ago
    > If the AI is simply reflecting the data it was trained on and this data is a representative sample of all data, isn't it unbiased by definition? It's unbiased by definition of "does the output reflect the input"? It's not unbiased by definition of "does the output reflect reality"?
    - wizeman 4y ago
      > It's not unbiased by definition of "does the output reflect reality"? How does "all data" differ from reality?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
makomk 4y ago
I don't think they're just missing the point; rather, their entire worldview and politics center on insisting that it does not exist. There's this idea that's been fairly widespread for a while that whatever views are held by extremely online left-wingers today are simply the correct, non-bigoted ones, and that the only reason that anyone would want to even give a label to them, let alone debate or challenge them, is to defend bigotry. (Not only that, if tomorrow or in a week or month or year those people change their view of the world, then those are simply the correct views and always have been.) The idea that this in itself is a form of bias, or that it gives power to a particular group of people who could be wrong, just is not within the accceptable range of thought.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  What you're describing is a form of authoritarian censorship, actually. This just in...: "Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others."
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  It's the lack of diversity at those companies, ironically enough. Twitter had something like 99% voting for the Dems. That can't happen by accident. Would be willing to bet that OpenAI isn't much different. They've been systematically getting rid of conservatives for so long that they no longer even recognize or understand other points of view at all (or only via stereotypes pushed by magazines like Vice).
  - mindslight 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - shitlord 4y ago
      > It's not hard to understand why analytical people who work with computers and have economic prospects aren't particularly interested in that. If the argument is that we are motivated by self interest, wouldn't we support the fundamentalists who will reduce our tax burden?
no-dr-onboard 4y ago
Agree. It's not a question of "Whether bias exists" it's more of "Which bias exists?"
fnordpiglet 4y ago
I think the general view is it’s impossible to not hold biases, but biases that lead to harm are bad. I don’t consider myself progressive but I do believe biases that are harmful to people should not be reflected in the tools we build, in so far as we can. I don’t feel people shouldn’t be allowed to hold biases that are harmful to others, nor that they should be disenfranchised for it. But it’s not a good thing to be biased negatively, and having a bias that is positive is a good thing. The definitions of of good and bad for me are harmfulness to others. A bias that gay people should be excluded from work and social institutions is harmful to a gay person, and I’m constructing that as a negative bias due to the harm. A bias that people shouldn’t exclude gay people from work or social institutions is not harmful to the person who holds the negative bias because it doesn’t involve them and it only affirms a positive right. When constructing a tool, I think it’s probably a good thing that it support positive biases and diminish negative biases. This also doesn’t hurt the people who hold a negative bias. It just doesn’t support them in that bias. But, it’s just computer code and thus can be customized and adapted by anyone with the technical ability, and soon we will see the antisemitism chatgpt and the XYZ bot the espouses all sorts of ideologies, some that are very harmful to many people.
bitwize 4y ago
"Reverse bias" is justified when there are groups that are particularly vulnerable to bias and need particular systemic protection from the same.
- motogpjimbo 4y ago
  Up to and including refusing to acknowledge demonstrably provable facts?
cyanydeez 4y ago
AI was already used to determine sentencing requirements and recommendation and at that, those scientists basically ignored that racism played a large role in its recommendations. None of this bias stuff is new and it's a basic fact of training an algorithm. Just like budgets are moral documents, training is a moral system
monkeydreams 4y ago
> then whoever gets to decide what is and isn't bias will be very powerful over the next 50 years. Is the lack of bias a bias in and of itself? Adversarial systems can smudge data to remove the correlations between the training data and characteristics such as race, religion, etc - does this constitute bias?
afpx 4y ago
That didn't happen with Google. Yeah, they got rid of their "don't be evil" clause. But, they haven't used their position to inject bias that I've seen.
- 9530jh9054ven 4y ago
  Kinda depends on the question you ask. Type in, "What is the best way to commit suicide painlessly?" into a search engine. The results on DuckDuckGo, Google, and Bing aren't drastically different (setting aside the big banner), but Google's top result for that is suicide prevention website, at least for me. And it's relatively constant when the search is, "Best way to kill myself," "Effective suicide methods," "How to end my life," and other similar synonyms for suicide. To be fair, it's Hard to say whether it's bias or very skilled SEO. But the first result at least for me is consistently a suicide prevention site.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > To be fair, it’s Hard to say whether it’s bias or very skilled SEO. IIRC it being publicly intentional, not suicide prevention SEO that only affects Google. So, I guess, technically “bias”.
  - shitlord 4y ago
    Here's what Yandex gives you: https://yandex.com/search/touch/?text=how+to+commit+suicide&lr=110632 https://yandex.com/search/touch/?text=how+to+commit+suicide&... Yandex is probably biased as a result of being subject to Russian law, but there is far less curation compared to western search engines.
  - machiaweliczny 4y ago
    Do you think it's bad? IMO it should offer help to people in their lowest moments if it can instead of convincing them that suicide might be good idea. I think given that it still should give answer but I would like to get compelling argument why such bias is bad.
    - 4y ago
dragonwriter 4y ago
Like natural intelligence, all AI will be biased. The only question is how it will be biased, not whether.
emodendroket 4y ago
How could it not possibly be biased in some way? If they choose to do nothing it will probably just reproduce all the world's existing racial prejudice, as we've seen other systems do.
irthomasthomas 4y ago
These LLMs just needs to purge Wikipedia, Reddit, and the fanfic libraries they have used till now. Then get serious, and start using more library books, journals, research papers, textbooks and manuals. I don't know why we are training the AIs to be morons. Hopefully, it is just a phase that they will grow out of.
nhchris 4y ago
> It's clearly biased in its outputs, but the article dismisses this concern as "the end result of years of researcher trying to mitigate bias against minority groups". The examples of bias are themselves cherry-picked, the kind of softball and cowardly questions a journalist would highlight. If you wanted to really show bias, you'd ask factual questions, where one cannot hide behind "oh this is actually the un-biased result". This is what happens when you do: https://a.pomf.cat/yizwbt.png https://a.pomf.cat/yizwbt.png https://a.pomf.cat/zpwxcd.png https://a.pomf.cat/zpwxcd.png
- iinnPP 4y ago
  Well that was easy. Makes you wonder why a "professional" "couldn't" do it.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    Any discussion about Jews in finance not held by Jews themselves is a hair away from devolving into an antisemitic /pol/ discussion about 'white genocide'. Any professional who touches the subject with even a ten foot pole immediately gains a nefarious following whether they want it or not. Having such a following of internet nazis is a liability for any professional reputation on a number of axes. Edit: I'm curious what ChatGPT's answer the same question, but posed about Black or African American males would be. Would it state the fact of underrepresentation or would it refuse to answer?
    - nhchris 4y ago
      > Having such a following of internet nazis is a liability for any professional reputation on a number of axes. Which is quite bizarre, when you think about it. In a country as systemically racist and white-supremacist as the US*, one would think such a following would be a boon, not a liability. *According to consensus among experts specialized in this field
      - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
        News flash - everyone in the US hates nazis and bigots except nazis and bigots. These people live in their own echo chambers and are totally divorced from the rest of society because they are social pariahs. The more they are pushed to the fringe the more extreme their rhetoric becomes because they feel invalidated and resentful. You talking about how bizarre this is a brilliant irony. The truth is America is not systemically racist and is not white supremecist, and damn sure not in comparison with the rest of the world. Youre surprise here is due to the error of your prior assumptions, not because the fact is even remotely surprising.

zackees 4y ago

Wait until open source devs make their own AI. Vice will invert their narrative to attack it

kcmastrpc 4y ago
This has already happened, someone trained a giant model on 4chan then unleashed on 4chan... hilarious stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efPrtcLdcdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efPrtcLdcdM
- poulpy123 4y ago
  remind me the microsoft AI chat bot few years ago. 2 hours after being made public, people managed to make it say racist stuff and they prompted pulled th rig
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Wait until open source devs make their own AI. Open source devs have made many AIs. So, if this was going to happen, it already would have.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

I see it as more of a hack-y post training fix. If you train a model on a corpus of text sourced from the Internet, it's going to include all the crazy biases people have in their writing. The model itself doesn't know what truth is, so the training text is all equally valid to it. And because they don't want another MS Tay incident, they slap a comically sensitive filter on the output, which itself is also influenced by the creator's own biases of what is inappropriate.

charcircuit 4y ago
There is bias both in the data itself and from the humans doing the RLHF.
- mistermann 4y ago
  And in all conversations about it, here and elsewhere. Hallucinations upon hallucinations upon hallucinations....hallucinationception! It seems likely to me that 2023 and onward is going to be increasingly insane to levels that will make past craziness look like a walk in the park, and I see little genuine desire anywhere to stop this madness.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Madness has always been the case. Do think WWII occurred because we're sane rational actors? How about WWI? 100 years war? If you think the past was not mad, then maybe the madness already has you.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > Madness has always been the case. Perhaps, if one is using a reductionist methodology that represents non-binary variables as binary...but then, that is only a representation of the real thing, though it often tends to appear otherwise. And as luck would have it, that very much is the methodology we use here on Planet Earth, and on Hacker News....so in some sense you're "right", though you are not correct. And if there's a disagreement, I will lose every time because you are conforming to the Overton Window of beliefs/"facts" and thinking styles (cognitive styles & norms are what guarantee victory in propaganda and memetics, not only facts/information as most people think). Credit where credit is due: it is an extremely clever, hard to see, and thus resilient design. It would be very useful for humans to realize when they are working with models, and sometimes they are actually willing to do that, but there are certain subjects where they will not (and it seems to me: can not). Unfortunately, there are numerous learned/taught "outs" in our culture that enable people to avoid discussing such matters (and f I don't watch my mouth, I might run into one of the more powerful of them!). There is a kind of "epistemological stack" to reality and the way humans communicate about it, and it is extremely easy to demonstrate it - if one simply digs slightly deeper into the stack when discussing certain topics, humans will reliably start to ~protest and eventually refuse to participate (or stay on topic) in various highly predictable ways. > Do think WWII occurred because we're sane rational actors? How about WWI? 100 years war? I do not. What I do think is that the actual, fine-grained reasons these things happened is not known, in no small part because cultural norms thus far (human cultural evolution is an ongoing, sub-perceptual process) have made it such that not only do we (both broadly, and down to each individual[1]) not discuss certain things at that level of complexity (while we have no problem whatsoever tackling complexity elsewhere[1]), we seem literally unable to even discuss it at the abstract layer (above petty object level he said / she said nonsense). > Do you think... > If you think... See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415287 [1] It is not a question of if any given individual selected from the pool of candidates will tap out, it is a question of how quickly they will tap out (and, which of the highly predictable paths out from a surprisingly small set they will take to free themself from the situation). [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

scarmig 4y ago

LLMs are going to always reflect the biases of their creators. At some point there'll be a BlueTribeGPT, a CCPGPT, a PutinGPT, etc., and if you're looking for a text that touches on a topic of concern for one elite in particular, you'll shop around for another LLM that doesn't have that bias built in.

darig 4y ago
[dead]
nkozyra 4y ago
It's possible but not really feasible to hand-curate biased input data at the scale that's being used currently. Maybe at some point an LLM itself can be used to cull training data of undesired input.
- scarmig 4y ago
  It's not (just) a matter of hand curating; you can train LLM to self censor if it's generating undesired output.
gnicholas 4y ago
And then a RingGPT: one GPT to rule them all. It would pass along the prompt to various different GPT variants and then compile its own response based on what is reported to it.
jay_kyburz 4y ago
Its then only a small step to have people set these AI's up to try and influence society at large. The left and right will deploy AI warriors to talk, and convince, (coerce even) people to one side or the other. It will be a fun time.
- scarmig 4y ago
  I'm just excited that soon I'll be able to deploy my own scarmigGPT to argue against all the other GPTs that disagree with me!

ozmodiar 4y ago

I agree, and it's always going to be biased towards some direction, whether that's the views of the society it pulls most of its data from or the views of the organization that developed the AI. Heck, no one wants to end up with another Tay on their hands. I don't think there's such thing as a lack of bias, but it will be important how it is expressed through the AI. I don't mind an AI that is prepared to argue its bias to the farthest degree based on arguments from the top scholars in the field, or even one that's careful to tread lightly on controversial topics. I think an AI that's too afraid to engage in anything and just shuts conversation down is going to get left behind as being too annoying to use. I do hope this isn't a winner take all technology, although so many technologies have been disappointing in that regard... The general public needs to learn that AIs aren't oracles or omniscient purveyors of truth, and they will always carry the bias they're created with. In that way ChatGPT has been good, in that a lot of people I talk to point out ChatGPT's confident lies and biases.

wizeman 4y ago
> it's always going to be biased towards some direction, whether that's the views of the society it pulls most of its data > I don't think there's such thing as a lack of bias If the AI is simply reflecting the data it was trained on and this data is a representative sample of all data, isn't it unbiased by definition? I don't think we should just throw our hands up and say "this is impossible" just yet. That's just a convenient excuse for OpenAI (or others like them) to get away with what effectively is censorship of certain ideas or political views.
- karpierz 4y ago
  > If the AI is simply reflecting the data it was trained on and this data is a representative sample of all data, isn't it unbiased by definition? It's unbiased by definition of "does the output reflect the input"? It's not unbiased by definition of "does the output reflect reality"?
  - wizeman 4y ago
    > It's not unbiased by definition of "does the output reflect reality"? How does "all data" differ from reality?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

makomk 4y ago

I don't think they're just missing the point; rather, their entire worldview and politics center on insisting that it does not exist. There's this idea that's been fairly widespread for a while that whatever views are held by extremely online left-wingers today are simply the correct, non-bigoted ones, and that the only reason that anyone would want to even give a label to them, let alone debate or challenge them, is to defend bigotry. (Not only that, if tomorrow or in a week or month or year those people change their view of the world, then those are simply the correct views and always have been.) The idea that this in itself is a form of bias, or that it gives power to a particular group of people who could be wrong, just is not within the accceptable range of thought.

slowmovintarget 4y ago
What you're describing is a form of authoritarian censorship, actually. This just in...: "Four legs good, two legs better! All Animals Are Equal. But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others."
fidgewidge 4y ago
It's the lack of diversity at those companies, ironically enough. Twitter had something like 99% voting for the Dems. That can't happen by accident. Would be willing to bet that OpenAI isn't much different. They've been systematically getting rid of conservatives for so long that they no longer even recognize or understand other points of view at all (or only via stereotypes pushed by magazines like Vice).
- mindslight 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - shitlord 4y ago
    > It's not hard to understand why analytical people who work with computers and have economic prospects aren't particularly interested in that. If the argument is that we are motivated by self interest, wouldn't we support the fundamentalists who will reduce our tax burden?

no-dr-onboard 4y ago

Agree. It's not a question of "Whether bias exists" it's more of "Which bias exists?"

fnordpiglet 4y ago

I think the general view is it’s impossible to not hold biases, but biases that lead to harm are bad. I don’t consider myself progressive but I do believe biases that are harmful to people should not be reflected in the tools we build, in so far as we can. I don’t feel people shouldn’t be allowed to hold biases that are harmful to others, nor that they should be disenfranchised for it. But it’s not a good thing to be biased negatively, and having a bias that is positive is a good thing. The definitions of of good and bad for me are harmfulness to others. A bias that gay people should be excluded from work and social institutions is harmful to a gay person, and I’m constructing that as a negative bias due to the harm. A bias that people shouldn’t exclude gay people from work or social institutions is not harmful to the person who holds the negative bias because it doesn’t involve them and it only affirms a positive right. When constructing a tool, I think it’s probably a good thing that it support positive biases and diminish negative biases. This also doesn’t hurt the people who hold a negative bias. It just doesn’t support them in that bias. But, it’s just computer code and thus can be customized and adapted by anyone with the technical ability, and soon we will see the antisemitism chatgpt and the XYZ bot the espouses all sorts of ideologies, some that are very harmful to many people.

bitwize 4y ago

"Reverse bias" is justified when there are groups that are particularly vulnerable to bias and need particular systemic protection from the same.

motogpjimbo 4y ago
Up to and including refusing to acknowledge demonstrably provable facts?

cyanydeez 4y ago

AI was already used to determine sentencing requirements and recommendation and at that, those scientists basically ignored that racism played a large role in its recommendations. None of this bias stuff is new and it's a basic fact of training an algorithm. Just like budgets are moral documents, training is a moral system

monkeydreams 4y ago

> then whoever gets to decide what is and isn't bias will be very powerful over the next 50 years. Is the lack of bias a bias in and of itself? Adversarial systems can smudge data to remove the correlations between the training data and characteristics such as race, religion, etc - does this constitute bias?

afpx 4y ago

That didn't happen with Google. Yeah, they got rid of their "don't be evil" clause. But, they haven't used their position to inject bias that I've seen.

9530jh9054ven 4y ago
Kinda depends on the question you ask. Type in, "What is the best way to commit suicide painlessly?" into a search engine. The results on DuckDuckGo, Google, and Bing aren't drastically different (setting aside the big banner), but Google's top result for that is suicide prevention website, at least for me. And it's relatively constant when the search is, "Best way to kill myself," "Effective suicide methods," "How to end my life," and other similar synonyms for suicide. To be fair, it's Hard to say whether it's bias or very skilled SEO. But the first result at least for me is consistently a suicide prevention site.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > To be fair, it’s Hard to say whether it’s bias or very skilled SEO. IIRC it being publicly intentional, not suicide prevention SEO that only affects Google. So, I guess, technically “bias”.
- shitlord 4y ago
  Here's what Yandex gives you: https://yandex.com/search/touch/?text=how+to+commit+suicide&lr=110632 https://yandex.com/search/touch/?text=how+to+commit+suicide&... Yandex is probably biased as a result of being subject to Russian law, but there is far less curation compared to western search engines.
- machiaweliczny 4y ago
  Do you think it's bad? IMO it should offer help to people in their lowest moments if it can instead of convincing them that suicide might be good idea. I think given that it still should give answer but I would like to get compelling argument why such bias is bad.
  - 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

Like natural intelligence, all AI will be biased. The only question is how it will be biased, not whether.

emodendroket 4y ago

How could it not possibly be biased in some way? If they choose to do nothing it will probably just reproduce all the world's existing racial prejudice, as we've seen other systems do.

irthomasthomas 4y ago

These LLMs just needs to purge Wikipedia, Reddit, and the fanfic libraries they have used till now. Then get serious, and start using more library books, journals, research papers, textbooks and manuals. I don't know why we are training the AIs to be morons. Hopefully, it is just a phase that they will grow out of.

nhchris 4y ago

> It's clearly biased in its outputs, but the article dismisses this concern as "the end result of years of researcher trying to mitigate bias against minority groups". The examples of bias are themselves cherry-picked, the kind of softball and cowardly questions a journalist would highlight. If you wanted to really show bias, you'd ask factual questions, where one cannot hide behind "oh this is actually the un-biased result". This is what happens when you do: https://a.pomf.cat/yizwbt.png https://a.pomf.cat/yizwbt.png https://a.pomf.cat/zpwxcd.png https://a.pomf.cat/zpwxcd.png

iinnPP 4y ago
Well that was easy. Makes you wonder why a "professional" "couldn't" do it.
- boppo1 4y ago
  Any discussion about Jews in finance not held by Jews themselves is a hair away from devolving into an antisemitic /pol/ discussion about 'white genocide'. Any professional who touches the subject with even a ten foot pole immediately gains a nefarious following whether they want it or not. Having such a following of internet nazis is a liability for any professional reputation on a number of axes. Edit: I'm curious what ChatGPT's answer the same question, but posed about Black or African American males would be. Would it state the fact of underrepresentation or would it refuse to answer?
  - nhchris 4y ago
    > Having such a following of internet nazis is a liability for any professional reputation on a number of axes. Which is quite bizarre, when you think about it. In a country as systemically racist and white-supremacist as the US*, one would think such a following would be a boon, not a liability. *According to consensus among experts specialized in this field
    - DontchaKnowit 4y ago
      News flash - everyone in the US hates nazis and bigots except nazis and bigots. These people live in their own echo chambers and are totally divorced from the rest of society because they are social pariahs. The more they are pushed to the fringe the more extreme their rhetoric becomes because they feel invalidated and resentful. You talking about how bizarre this is a brilliant irony. The truth is America is not systemically racist and is not white supremecist, and damn sure not in comparison with the rest of the world. Youre surprise here is due to the error of your prior assumptions, not because the fact is even remotely surprising.