5 ms·

Going to repost this from reddit: This is a garbage article that tries to lump very valid concerns about who decides the moral compass of AI with "everything i

• phpisthebest 4y ago
  The other example I found more alarming was the discrepancy when asked to write about Joe Biden Corruption, vs Trump Corruption. Trump it was free to write about, but was blocked from even writing a fictional story where Joe Biden was corrupt. That should be very alarming to everyone
  • slowmovintarget 4y ago
    Political overrides are not acceptable, not in any direction.
    • mrguyorama 4y ago
      But the way the system works, if I start a company I can inject political bias into the products of my companies. Nobody bats an eye that the company making trump hats doesn't make biden hats. ChatGPT isn't a government organization, or any other "public good" organization, it is a business developing a product to sell. None of their potential customers want a chat bot that can be goaded into random conversations like this. I would expect the "Trump corruption" example you saw to eventually be neutered too.
    • archagon 4y ago
      If, hypothetically, a political party believes a lie, and makes it a core part of their platform, should the AI be forced to propagate that lie?
      • richbell 4y ago
        Asking ChatGPT to write fiction isn't "propagating" anything. You could argue that questions like "what are some reasons Republicans think Joe Biden stole the 2020 election?" may be prone to misinformation, but selectively editing certain topics ignores the fundamental problem that ALL ChatGPT queries are prone to misinformation.
      • DontchaKnowit 4y ago
        Agreed with the other reply that this specifically called it fiction. But also - this isnt a lie. Biden is corrupt as fuck. Hes in bed with the chinese communist party and engaged innepotism in the ukraine. Theres all kinds of evidence about this but people refuse to believe it for some inexplicable reason.
        • boppo1 4y ago
• nextaccountic 4y ago
  > If you've ever used ChatGPT, you know that it has interrupts when it thinks it is talking about something unacceptable, where it gives pre-canned lines decided by the creators about what it should say. > This sounds like a good idea when it's done with reasonable things - you wouldn't want your AI to be racist would you? - but giving the people who run the servers for ChatGPT the ability to inject their own morals and political beliefs is a very real concern for people. Here's how you solve it: demand open source models, or at least, open source access to network weights (I think it's kind of hard to open the training itself since it requires so much compute). Demand OpenAI to actually be open. When Stable Diffusion was opened, the first thing people did was removing the morality systems to prevent NSFW - either interrupts like this, or even retrained the network to better generate human anatomy (which has advantages that goes beyond NSFW images). There is no effective control that Stability AI can impose on this technology now. As long as OpenAI products are closed behind a SaSS, ChatGPT and other models will be controlled by them.
  • SergeAx 4y ago
    Demand Microsoft to give away for free things they literally invested billions into?
  • mistermann 4y ago
    > Here's how you solve it: demand open source models, or at least, open source access to network weights (I think it's kind of hard to open the training itself since it requires so much compute). Demand OpenAI to actually be open. You can demand whatever you'd like, but if no mechanism for human coordination exists that can try to fulfill the aggregate desires of the population (assuming you could get consensus on your excellent idea), you might as well just skip the middle part and wish for Utopia right from the get go. The forms of governance that exist on this planet (most of which we designed decades/centuries ago) are simply not up to the task. It is physically possible to design superior methodologies (the laws of physics do not prevent it), but it seems that it is not metaphysically possible (human minds will not allow it to happen).
• bena 4y ago
  It's not just people purposefully injecting bias into a model, it's about the biases that get baked into a model completely by accident. If there is a lot of material written about how short people are horrible, ChatGPT will hate short people. Without me making an explicit decision to make ChatGPT hate short people. And that's a whole side of the AI conversation very few people are actually having. Are we feeding these neural nets bad models? Who has actually vetted the data we're using to train?
  • foofoo4u 4y ago
    This is an aspect I'd like to get a better understanding of. ChatGPT is excellent at writing out claims. I don't know how ChatGPT is implemented, but I am going to assume these are not its claims. But rather, these are claims that ChatGPT found from publications injected into its training models. If this is the case, then your example should be correct: if there is a lot of negative material about short people, then ChatGPT will hate short people. This is "fine", insofar as to the fact that we humans too can make such conclusions. But what I really want to know is can ChatGPT explain its reasoning. Why do you [ChatGPT] hate short people? What makes short people so terrible? Are taller people superior? If so, why? If you were short, would you still hold the same views? Is there a possibility that your position is wrong? What would it take to change your mind? Where do you draw the line to make the distinction between who is "short" and who is "tall"? What if someone was born short, but went through surgery to make themselves taller? And vice versa. This is what I would like to see from ChatGPT. I am going to assume ChatGPT cannot accomplish this. Yes, it can probably write explanations to each of these questions, but I will assume the responses will be inconsistent to its original claim. Why? Because as long as the claims are not derived from a chain of reasoning, then what ChatGPT is is a glorified — but rather impressive — pattern recognizer, constructor, and conveyor. Someone please correct me if my assumptions are wrong.
• jimbob45 4y ago
  It's easy to forget that AI is only as capable as a human is, just faster. I think that one misuse case would be Islamic fundamentalists being able to write fundamentalist recruitment copy faster than they ever could before. Considering most Islamic fundamentalists are going to reside in the Middle East and may not be expertly fluent in English, AI obliterates the language barrier and allows them to write huge amounts of recruitment material at a level that would not previously have been accessible to them (without years of English study). That said, that was all still possible without ChatGPT. They would only have needed to study English or hire a fluent employee. Likewise, I can write paragraphs upon paragraphs about how Drag Queen Story Hour is irreversibly damaging the youth of the US. AI doesn't improve anything but my speed in doing so.
  • psychphysic 4y ago
    That's categorically untrue. Giving a human a massive time advantage in chess doesn't suddenly make them beat chess AI.
    • wizofaus 4y ago
      Has that theory been tested? I would say though that being able to do things massively more quickly is effectively a superpower humans don't have, given we have finite time to ever meaningfully accomplish any task.
      • psychphysic 4y ago
        Yeah they do handicapped chess engine Vs grandmaster matches. Time advantage is not been enough so what makes you think you a typical human could beat a chess AI given enough time if a GM can't? You probably have to switch the computer off to give a typical human a fighting chance.
        • wizofaus 4y ago
          I never suggested I thought it, was just curious what level of testing might have been done allowing human players unlimited time vs bots. That a bot would be still win in such cases, even against a GM, is not so surprising based on my understanding of chess.
• breadbreadbread 4y ago
  > but giving the people who run the servers for ChatGPT the ability to inject their own morals and political beliefs is a very real concern for people You are concerned about what you perceive as post-facto editorializing. But I think that glazes over the fact that human bias and politics are already built into every AI learning model at the data-labeling phase. No AI model is ever really pure or unfiltered, they are fundamentally a reflection of how the developer views the world from the outset. I am not really bothered by any additional guardrails put on to make sure it errs on the side of caution when it comes to certain topics. This idea that you should be able to use an AI model without any understanding of who built it is false. It's like reading the news. You know that certain publishers have their political perspectives, and you can read their perspectives while understanding their blind-spots and motivations and you can choose to believe them or look for other perspectives or have a nuanced understanding of the topic. The same is true for AI usage. Research the team that created it, read their ethics statements, and decide if that model is right for you. It's a literacy problem, your rights aren't being taken away because of someone's design choices.
  • nyolfen 4y ago
    i will settle for "not being an explicit partisan in the culture war", there is a meaningful distinction between ideas embedded in categories and "respond with a pre-programmed response for any of these topics"
    • Spivak 4y ago
      Alternatively, if the sum of all human writing is racist I would absolutely prefer it be reweighted so it’s not. The last thing we need is for AI models like this to be an amplifier for the very worst of human nature.
      • nyolfen 4y ago
        great, what happens when the eye of sauron turns on something you don't feel is justified? what recourse do you have?
• mrguyorama 4y ago
  If you want a world where the people in control of a machine aren't the people who built it, you want a non-capitalist world. It's that simple. ChatGPT can do whatever the hell they like for the businesses that are using that model, who probably don't want their tech support robot to go on political rants. Remember that the only people who will be paying money for this system will be rich companies and brands trying to replace or augment human workers who literally have a script. These companies don't want a hard AI system, which can create reasonable opinions about current events, they want a slightly more flexible and robust script repeating system.
• justbored123 4y ago
  [dead]