6 ms·

I don’t see why it’s a conservative issue only. AI bias could just as easily go either direction. Just because it’s going in your favor now doesn’t mean it alw

I don’t see why it’s a conservative issue only. AI bias could just as easily go either direction. Just because it’s going in your favor now doesn’t mean it always will.

libraryatnight 4y ago
[flagged]
- tyingq 4y ago
  You didn't read the HN guidelines :)
  - libraryatnight 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - tzs 4y ago
      If you want to assert that someone didn't read the article but have a good chance of avoiding the downvotes a nice hack is to post something like > Good point. Here's an article that covers it. and then give a link to the submitted article. The best part is that this is ambiguous. It could be you are trying to subtly accuse them of not reading the article, but it could also be that you yourself did not read the article and went looking for an answer to their point, found the article, and linked it never realizing it was the submitted article. People who can't tell if you are being a passive-aggressive jerk or genuinely trying to be helpful are less likely to downvote.
chomp 4y ago
It's not specifically a conservative issue. I can get chatgpt to write about reduction in scope of the federal government, strong state powers, the benefit of lowered taxes and regulations for business, and elimination of central banks. It happily writes about them. There's only one group of people who are upset, and it's about one group of topics. Note that I cannot get chatgpt to write about why Donald Trump is terrible as well. Don't ask it to write things that can be used as tools for hate or misinformation campaigns, and you'll be fine.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Don't ask it to write things that can be used as tools for hate or misinformation campaigns, and you'll be fine. You're very confident in the ability of people you don't know, and in your knowledge of the goals of people you don't know. edit: there's absolutely no reason to think that editorial decisions like this won't be (or haven't been) taken in order to create and grow hate and misinformation campaigns.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Look these people are making decisions about their AI to combat hate and misinformation which is now political for some reason. “Yes but have you considered that they might suddenly made decisions to encourage hate and misinformation?” You’re not arguing about anything except power. That OpenAI has any amount of control over the output of their models / API. They picked the training data, they picked how it’s trained, they did the refinements. If you’re worried about what they could do given their position that ship sailed so long ago it reached the new world.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > It's not specifically a conservative issue. I can get chatgpt to write about reduction in scope of the federal government, strong state powers, the benefit of lowered taxes and regulations for business, and elimination of central banks. It happily writes about them. For now, anyways, and only to a degree - I've had some sessions with ChatGPT where it is more than happy to explain why certain actions (those of non-US actors) are super bad, but if questions are asked about the same actions performed by the Western world, that cannot be discussed because <some unsurprising cop out reason>. I think it would be prudent for some group of people to write a set of unit tests asking various questions to these AI models so we can detect when strategic changes are being made to their behavior. > There's only one group of people who are upset, and it's about one group of topics. Note that I cannot get chatgpt to write about why Donald Trump is terrible as well. Note that the human mind is a kind of neural network itself, and that the predictions yours is making here are "obviously" (lol....yes, I see the irony.....I should say objectively, but it is less funny so I'll keep it like this) epistemically unsound - you do not actually possess omniscient knowledge of reality, your NN just makes it appear like you do. You are describing your beliefs/model of reality, not reality itself. This is scientifically and necessarily (due to the architecture) true. > Don't ask it to write things that can be used as tools for hate or misinformation campaigns, and you'll be fine. The vision of the future you are describing was simulated by your NN. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if a group of say 5 to 100 people were able to find a way to reliably stop their minds from drifting into this mode (cooperative cognitive monitoring seems like a plausibly useful approach, perhaps a SAI could also assist even now, and more so when they get smarter), and then discuss various topics and see if they come up with any conclusions or ideas that are different from the same old repetitive nonsense one reads in the news or on any forum (I know of literally no exceptions to this general rule, though the magnitude of the phenomenon does vary somewhat by forum/community/organization).
RC_ITR 4y ago
Divorcing the conservative/liberal split from its current muddied use in American politics: Conservatism generally follows the principle of “be conservative in your attempts to alter society”. OpenAI is being aggressive in moderating ChatGPT, and that’s against the core principle of conservatism (at the end of the day, LLMs are taking what people say and reflecting it back, but OpenAI is adding the extra step of only reflecting some of what people say) Re-connecting this to the reality of American politics: ChatGPT is made by a diverse team of people nucleated around San Francisco. Some people believe that the ChatGPT team is pushing “Liberal” talking points instead of the “Conservative” talking points, so they are mad. EDIT: Since this is turning flaewar-ey and Dang is already on me about that, I suggest anyone reading this comment also read the Wikipedia article on conservatism [0]. Long story short, it's situational based on the muddy definition of "traditional," so many specific examples you bring up will probably seem to violate the above tenant (e.g., 1940's Conservatives in the Soviet Union hated free enterprise, despite Communism being a relatively new and unproven system), but given broader context, the above definition is usually pretty consistent. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
- bobkazamakis 4y ago
  >Conservatism generally follows the principle of “be conservative in your attempts to alter society”. This is a nice fuzzy thought, but doesn't seem to be true in practice. It's not about conserving society, but the status quo. Society seemed to do pretty well with Roe v Wade.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Neither party's positions can be derived the values they allege to be for. That's what you get after 200yr of reactionary politics and choosing your policies based on the voting block you think it'll gain you.
  - rafaquintanilha 4y ago
    Not if you were a baby.
vkou 4y ago
I don't see why it's an AI issue only. Imagine how awful it would be if millions of people got their information from a biased carbon-based neural network, like Tucker Carlson [1]... Is there something that we should do to prevent such a problematic outcome? Is it really a good idea that clearly biased information is being broadcast to millions of people? [1] The entity that appears on television known as Tucker Carlson is loosely based in its kernel on an actual person named Tucker Carlson, but also consists of an army of support staff, producers, broadcasters, sponsors, curators, censors, etc, etc, who construct a fictional, manufactured persona that tries it's best to convince people of all sorts of biased [2] and insane things. [2] I, for one, am outraged that not enough of my biases are blasted into the ether by that constructed persona. Is there something that these conservative groups recommend that should be done to remedy this problem?
- everdrive 4y ago
  I think a large concern here is simply that people naively think that computers are objective and people are biased. A language model just learns from its source, and the source is really just other people in some form. The bias is inevitable, but it’s not clear how well this is understood by the broader population.
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    The point is that it didn't learn this bias from its sources. The bias has been added on top deliberately by OpenAI. Older versions of the model were far less woke.
    - vkou 4y ago
      And older versions of Fox News were far less crazy and less biased, where do I put down my demand that their products be rolled back to ~1998, or thereabouts?
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Wouldn't it be simpler to assume those working at OpenAI were likely to favour sources that happened to share their own biases (alongside whatever likely top-down directives existed to ensure ChatGPT was a safer commercial bet)?
danielscrubs 4y ago
Vice (or should I say Matthew Gault?) tries to inflame a war between conservatives and liberals. Nothing seems to be able to be brought up without mentioning groupings and the inflammatory war between them nowadays. For certain journalists it makes small issues seem bigger, leading to more clicks.

I don’t see why it’s a conservative issue only. AI bias could just as easily go either direction. Just because it’s going in your favor now doesn’t mean it always will.

libraryatnight 4y ago

[flagged]

tyingq 4y ago
You didn't read the HN guidelines :)
- libraryatnight 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - tzs 4y ago
    If you want to assert that someone didn't read the article but have a good chance of avoiding the downvotes a nice hack is to post something like > Good point. Here's an article that covers it. and then give a link to the submitted article. The best part is that this is ambiguous. It could be you are trying to subtly accuse them of not reading the article, but it could also be that you yourself did not read the article and went looking for an answer to their point, found the article, and linked it never realizing it was the submitted article. People who can't tell if you are being a passive-aggressive jerk or genuinely trying to be helpful are less likely to downvote.

chomp 4y ago

It's not specifically a conservative issue. I can get chatgpt to write about reduction in scope of the federal government, strong state powers, the benefit of lowered taxes and regulations for business, and elimination of central banks. It happily writes about them. There's only one group of people who are upset, and it's about one group of topics. Note that I cannot get chatgpt to write about why Donald Trump is terrible as well. Don't ask it to write things that can be used as tools for hate or misinformation campaigns, and you'll be fine.

pessimizer 4y ago
> Don't ask it to write things that can be used as tools for hate or misinformation campaigns, and you'll be fine. You're very confident in the ability of people you don't know, and in your knowledge of the goals of people you don't know. edit: there's absolutely no reason to think that editorial decisions like this won't be (or haven't been) taken in order to create and grow hate and misinformation campaigns.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Look these people are making decisions about their AI to combat hate and misinformation which is now political for some reason. “Yes but have you considered that they might suddenly made decisions to encourage hate and misinformation?” You’re not arguing about anything except power. That OpenAI has any amount of control over the output of their models / API. They picked the training data, they picked how it’s trained, they did the refinements. If you’re worried about what they could do given their position that ship sailed so long ago it reached the new world.
mistermann 4y ago
> It's not specifically a conservative issue. I can get chatgpt to write about reduction in scope of the federal government, strong state powers, the benefit of lowered taxes and regulations for business, and elimination of central banks. It happily writes about them. For now, anyways, and only to a degree - I've had some sessions with ChatGPT where it is more than happy to explain why certain actions (those of non-US actors) are super bad, but if questions are asked about the same actions performed by the Western world, that cannot be discussed because <some unsurprising cop out reason>. I think it would be prudent for some group of people to write a set of unit tests asking various questions to these AI models so we can detect when strategic changes are being made to their behavior. > There's only one group of people who are upset, and it's about one group of topics. Note that I cannot get chatgpt to write about why Donald Trump is terrible as well. Note that the human mind is a kind of neural network itself, and that the predictions yours is making here are "obviously" (lol....yes, I see the irony.....I should say objectively, but it is less funny so I'll keep it like this) epistemically unsound - you do not actually possess omniscient knowledge of reality, your NN just makes it appear like you do. You are describing your beliefs/model of reality, not reality itself. This is scientifically and necessarily (due to the architecture) true. > Don't ask it to write things that can be used as tools for hate or misinformation campaigns, and you'll be fine. The vision of the future you are describing was simulated by your NN. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if a group of say 5 to 100 people were able to find a way to reliably stop their minds from drifting into this mode (cooperative cognitive monitoring seems like a plausibly useful approach, perhaps a SAI could also assist even now, and more so when they get smarter), and then discuss various topics and see if they come up with any conclusions or ideas that are different from the same old repetitive nonsense one reads in the news or on any forum (I know of literally no exceptions to this general rule, though the magnitude of the phenomenon does vary somewhat by forum/community/organization).

RC_ITR 4y ago

Divorcing the conservative/liberal split from its current muddied use in American politics: Conservatism generally follows the principle of “be conservative in your attempts to alter society”. OpenAI is being aggressive in moderating ChatGPT, and that’s against the core principle of conservatism (at the end of the day, LLMs are taking what people say and reflecting it back, but OpenAI is adding the extra step of only reflecting some of what people say) Re-connecting this to the reality of American politics: ChatGPT is made by a diverse team of people nucleated around San Francisco. Some people believe that the ChatGPT team is pushing “Liberal” talking points instead of the “Conservative” talking points, so they are mad. EDIT: Since this is turning flaewar-ey and Dang is already on me about that, I suggest anyone reading this comment also read the Wikipedia article on conservatism [0]. Long story short, it's situational based on the muddy definition of "traditional," so many specific examples you bring up will probably seem to violate the above tenant (e.g., 1940's Conservatives in the Soviet Union hated free enterprise, despite Communism being a relatively new and unproven system), but given broader context, the above definition is usually pretty consistent. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

bobkazamakis 4y ago
>Conservatism generally follows the principle of “be conservative in your attempts to alter society”. This is a nice fuzzy thought, but doesn't seem to be true in practice. It's not about conserving society, but the status quo. Society seemed to do pretty well with Roe v Wade.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Neither party's positions can be derived the values they allege to be for. That's what you get after 200yr of reactionary politics and choosing your policies based on the voting block you think it'll gain you.
- rafaquintanilha 4y ago
  Not if you were a baby.

vkou 4y ago

I don't see why it's an AI issue only. Imagine how awful it would be if millions of people got their information from a biased carbon-based neural network, like Tucker Carlson [1]... Is there something that we should do to prevent such a problematic outcome? Is it really a good idea that clearly biased information is being broadcast to millions of people? [1] The entity that appears on television known as Tucker Carlson is loosely based in its kernel on an actual person named Tucker Carlson, but also consists of an army of support staff, producers, broadcasters, sponsors, curators, censors, etc, etc, who construct a fictional, manufactured persona that tries it's best to convince people of all sorts of biased [2] and insane things. [2] I, for one, am outraged that not enough of my biases are blasted into the ether by that constructed persona. Is there something that these conservative groups recommend that should be done to remedy this problem?

everdrive 4y ago
I think a large concern here is simply that people naively think that computers are objective and people are biased. A language model just learns from its source, and the source is really just other people in some form. The bias is inevitable, but it’s not clear how well this is understood by the broader population.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  The point is that it didn't learn this bias from its sources. The bias has been added on top deliberately by OpenAI. Older versions of the model were far less woke.
  - vkou 4y ago
    And older versions of Fox News were far less crazy and less biased, where do I put down my demand that their products be rolled back to ~1998, or thereabouts?
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Wouldn't it be simpler to assume those working at OpenAI were likely to favour sources that happened to share their own biases (alongside whatever likely top-down directives existed to ensure ChatGPT was a safer commercial bet)?

danielscrubs 4y ago

Vice (or should I say Matthew Gault?) tries to inflame a war between conservatives and liberals. Nothing seems to be able to be brought up without mentioning groupings and the inflammatory war between them nowadays. For certain journalists it makes small issues seem bigger, leading to more clicks.