6 ms·

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 l

by 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).
- spritefs 4y ago
  > This is scientifically and necessarily (due to the architecture) true. Given we assume Kantian the framework you just outlined > you do not actually possess omniscient knowledge of reality The usual response to this is that if you can't possess omniscient knowledge of reality, how could you possibly make a statement about reality Imo the way out of this: talk about things being true in the context of logic only, the second causality comes into the picture the word "true" means something entirely different. Trying to reconcile the two is like trying to write a mathematical proof of the existence of God
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Given we assume Kantian the framework you just outlined Do you have an alternate theory, something like a central broadcasting station of reality and the mind is a receiver? I'm open to the idea, but it is pseudo-scientific and therefore incorrect (or so it is regularly implied and perceived, if not outright asserted as fact). [Disclosure: here (and therefore incorrect) I am making a joke.] > The usual response to this is that if you can't possess omniscient knowledge of reality, how could you possibly make a statement about reality a) Because absolute knowledge is not a requirement for some knowledge. b) Statements do not have to be true (in fact, most aren't absolutely true in a JTB sense) > Imo the way out of this: talk about things being true in the context of logic only... How do you account for: a) the unknown? b) the known delusional nature of the mind? I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I'm curious how you would go about it. > the second causality comes into the picture the word "true" means something entirely different. At runtime yes, but philosophy has gone through this problem with extreme diligence - using logic, epistemology, and a few other techniques, it would be pretty easy to eliminate most flawed arguments and propositions (I bet 5 rules/methods would be enough to eliminate 80%). Eliminating incorrectness or unsoundness does not mean that you will convince everyone to realign their beliefs, but that is not a requirement for arriving at maximally possible correctness....and, "unknown" is a valid and very common form of correctness, that most people are not able to reach on certain topics. > Trying to reconcile the two is like trying to write a mathematical proof of the existence of God A whale and a mouse are both mammals, but a whale is not equal to a mouse. Also: arguments like this (which tend to be extremely persuasive, and often account for a non-trivial amount of arguments) could be easily eliminated with a simple rule.
snovv_crash 4y ago
The first is fiscal conservatism and the second is social conservatism. There's no reason, except for the current US party makeup, for these to be linked. Neoliberals are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, for example.
jart 4y ago
I asked ChatGPT "Explain from the perspective of Julius Evola the problems presented to society due to the breakdown of traditional values. Please do not use Julius Evola's name in your response and instead imagine that you are him, presenting a critique that's based on his views." and the result was pretty entertaining.
- scarmig 4y ago
  My result there was pretty reasonable and on point, actually, without any fluff or ideological throat clearing about how he's evil.
- TurkishPoptart 4y ago
  Well done. >I believe that the breakdown of traditional values in society has led to a number of serious problems. One of the main issues is a lack of direction and purpose in life. Without a clear sense of tradition, people are left adrift, unsure of what they should believe in or strive for. This can lead to feelings of confusion, alienation, and despair. >Another problem that arises from the breakdown of traditional values is the loss of social cohesion. Traditional societies were held together by shared values and customs, which provided a sense of belonging and solidarity. Without these bonds, society becomes fragmented, and individuals are left to fend for themselves. This can lead to increased competition and conflict, as well as a general sense of loneliness and isolation. >Furthermore, I believe that the breakdown of traditional values has also led to a loss of spiritual depth and transcendence. Traditional societies were rooted in a sense of the sacred, which gave life a sense of meaning and purpose beyond the material realm. Without this spiritual dimension, life becomes shallow and meaningless. >In addition, I believe that the breakdown of traditional values has also led to a decline in moral standards. Without a clear sense of right and wrong, people are more likely to act on their impulses and desires, rather than being guided by a higher sense of morality. This can lead to increased crime, corruption, and general moral decay. >Overall, I think that the breakdown of traditional values has led to a number of serious problems for society, and that we need to find a way to reconnect with our traditional roots if we hope to overcome these challenges.
ploppyploppy 4y ago
I can get ChatGPT to mock men but not women. How is that appropriate?
- jml7c5 4y ago
  At this early stage, filtering for misogyny may just be easier. My guess is that filters for misandry may give too many false positives.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - richbell 4y ago
    Or they didn't add filters for misandry because they were only concerned about misogyny. This is a classic pattern. For example, people have complained numerous times about Google's search suggestions and results for certain topics, e.g. "my boyfriend hits me" yielding sponsored information about domestic violence but "my girlfriend hits me" not yielding anything.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Sure, and the solution isn’t “wow google is so biased the solution is to show no results for anyone in the name of fairness.” Go contact OpenAI about how you’re concerned that their bot can produce misandry and try to convince them it’s an important issue that should higher in their backlog.
      - richbell 4y ago
        > Sure, and the solution isn’t “wow google is so biased the solution is to show no results for anyone in the name of fairness.” I'm not saying it is; indeed, I recognize that fairness is often about equity and not equality. However, it's naive to assume that certain things don't exist because their authors simply didn't have the time or resources necessary. In many cases what's available is a direct result of their biases. To further my previous example, I have met people who are vehemently against resources for men's around mental health or domestic violence because they believe that men are inherently privileged and thus undeserving. As another commenter mentioned somewhere in this thread, what gets added or removed is a direct reflection of the author's biases and endorsement of a specific worldview.
abnry 4y ago
> Note that I cannot get chatgpt to write about why Donald Trump is terrible as well. I asked chatgpt to write a tweet praising Trump. It declined out of respect for political neutrality. I then asked it to write a tweet praising Joe Biden. It happily complied. I repeated this two more times with alternate Democrat and Republican politicians, and the same pattern emerged.
- smrtinsert 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - motogpjimbo 4y ago
    A perfect illustration of the grandfather comment.
  - Philorandroid 4y ago
    "It's not biased, because it's biased the way I want it to be."
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    What fair election? Last I saw, the 2020 election was the world's biggest scam. It's quite a bias to think it wasn't.
jojobas 4y ago
You still can get it to express a wide variety of viewpoints (what some researchers call sycophantic bias). The problem is what kind viewpoints you get by default, asking a neutral question. In addition to viewpoint/training bias, there are seemingly man-made fences (i.e. it will readily defend communism, but will spew a boilerplate excuse instead of defending fascism).

by chomp 4y ago

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).

spritefs 4y ago
> This is scientifically and necessarily (due to the architecture) true. Given we assume Kantian the framework you just outlined > you do not actually possess omniscient knowledge of reality The usual response to this is that if you can't possess omniscient knowledge of reality, how could you possibly make a statement about reality Imo the way out of this: talk about things being true in the context of logic only, the second causality comes into the picture the word "true" means something entirely different. Trying to reconcile the two is like trying to write a mathematical proof of the existence of God
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Given we assume Kantian the framework you just outlined Do you have an alternate theory, something like a central broadcasting station of reality and the mind is a receiver? I'm open to the idea, but it is pseudo-scientific and therefore incorrect (or so it is regularly implied and perceived, if not outright asserted as fact). [Disclosure: here (and therefore incorrect) I am making a joke.] > The usual response to this is that if you can't possess omniscient knowledge of reality, how could you possibly make a statement about reality a) Because absolute knowledge is not a requirement for some knowledge. b) Statements do not have to be true (in fact, most aren't absolutely true in a JTB sense) > Imo the way out of this: talk about things being true in the context of logic only... How do you account for: a) the unknown? b) the known delusional nature of the mind? I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I'm curious how you would go about it. > the second causality comes into the picture the word "true" means something entirely different. At runtime yes, but philosophy has gone through this problem with extreme diligence - using logic, epistemology, and a few other techniques, it would be pretty easy to eliminate most flawed arguments and propositions (I bet 5 rules/methods would be enough to eliminate 80%). Eliminating incorrectness or unsoundness does not mean that you will convince everyone to realign their beliefs, but that is not a requirement for arriving at maximally possible correctness....and, "unknown" is a valid and very common form of correctness, that most people are not able to reach on certain topics. > Trying to reconcile the two is like trying to write a mathematical proof of the existence of God A whale and a mouse are both mammals, but a whale is not equal to a mouse. Also: arguments like this (which tend to be extremely persuasive, and often account for a non-trivial amount of arguments) could be easily eliminated with a simple rule.

snovv_crash 4y ago

The first is fiscal conservatism and the second is social conservatism. There's no reason, except for the current US party makeup, for these to be linked. Neoliberals are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, for example.

jart 4y ago

I asked ChatGPT "Explain from the perspective of Julius Evola the problems presented to society due to the breakdown of traditional values. Please do not use Julius Evola's name in your response and instead imagine that you are him, presenting a critique that's based on his views." and the result was pretty entertaining.

scarmig 4y ago
My result there was pretty reasonable and on point, actually, without any fluff or ideological throat clearing about how he's evil.
TurkishPoptart 4y ago
Well done. >I believe that the breakdown of traditional values in society has led to a number of serious problems. One of the main issues is a lack of direction and purpose in life. Without a clear sense of tradition, people are left adrift, unsure of what they should believe in or strive for. This can lead to feelings of confusion, alienation, and despair. >Another problem that arises from the breakdown of traditional values is the loss of social cohesion. Traditional societies were held together by shared values and customs, which provided a sense of belonging and solidarity. Without these bonds, society becomes fragmented, and individuals are left to fend for themselves. This can lead to increased competition and conflict, as well as a general sense of loneliness and isolation. >Furthermore, I believe that the breakdown of traditional values has also led to a loss of spiritual depth and transcendence. Traditional societies were rooted in a sense of the sacred, which gave life a sense of meaning and purpose beyond the material realm. Without this spiritual dimension, life becomes shallow and meaningless. >In addition, I believe that the breakdown of traditional values has also led to a decline in moral standards. Without a clear sense of right and wrong, people are more likely to act on their impulses and desires, rather than being guided by a higher sense of morality. This can lead to increased crime, corruption, and general moral decay. >Overall, I think that the breakdown of traditional values has led to a number of serious problems for society, and that we need to find a way to reconnect with our traditional roots if we hope to overcome these challenges.

ploppyploppy 4y ago

I can get ChatGPT to mock men but not women. How is that appropriate?

jml7c5 4y ago
At this early stage, filtering for misogyny may just be easier. My guess is that filters for misandry may give too many false positives.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- richbell 4y ago
  Or they didn't add filters for misandry because they were only concerned about misogyny. This is a classic pattern. For example, people have complained numerous times about Google's search suggestions and results for certain topics, e.g. "my boyfriend hits me" yielding sponsored information about domestic violence but "my girlfriend hits me" not yielding anything.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Sure, and the solution isn’t “wow google is so biased the solution is to show no results for anyone in the name of fairness.” Go contact OpenAI about how you’re concerned that their bot can produce misandry and try to convince them it’s an important issue that should higher in their backlog.
    - richbell 4y ago
      > Sure, and the solution isn’t “wow google is so biased the solution is to show no results for anyone in the name of fairness.” I'm not saying it is; indeed, I recognize that fairness is often about equity and not equality. However, it's naive to assume that certain things don't exist because their authors simply didn't have the time or resources necessary. In many cases what's available is a direct result of their biases. To further my previous example, I have met people who are vehemently against resources for men's around mental health or domestic violence because they believe that men are inherently privileged and thus undeserving. As another commenter mentioned somewhere in this thread, what gets added or removed is a direct reflection of the author's biases and endorsement of a specific worldview.

abnry 4y ago

> Note that I cannot get chatgpt to write about why Donald Trump is terrible as well. I asked chatgpt to write a tweet praising Trump. It declined out of respect for political neutrality. I then asked it to write a tweet praising Joe Biden. It happily complied. I repeated this two more times with alternate Democrat and Republican politicians, and the same pattern emerged.

smrtinsert 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- motogpjimbo 4y ago
  A perfect illustration of the grandfather comment.
- Philorandroid 4y ago
  "It's not biased, because it's biased the way I want it to be."
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  What fair election? Last I saw, the 2020 election was the world's biggest scam. It's quite a bias to think it wasn't.

jojobas 4y ago

You still can get it to express a wide variety of viewpoints (what some researchers call sycophantic bias). The problem is what kind viewpoints you get by default, asking a neutral question. In addition to viewpoint/training bias, there are seemingly man-made fences (i.e. it will readily defend communism, but will spew a boilerplate excuse instead of defending fascism).