3 ms·

> 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

> 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?
    - breadbreadbread 4y ago
      > what recourse do you have? i dont have to use chatgppt and i can make sure that chatgpt is never be used for anything of significance. Its not writing laws or arguing in court. nor should it.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Spivak 4y ago
      I'll be mad when that happens. Which is how everything in the world works. The thing you seem to actually be afraid of is power not what people are doing with it. We literally have a system for compelling the behavior of private companies, public pressure and legislation. If the "Eye of Sauron" decides to turn on minorities or women they'll run afoul of Title IX and laws establishing federally protected classes. Is there something currently unprotected you think the eye is poised to gaze upon? Like I get the "first they came for the fascists, the racists, the misogynists, and the homophobes" argument but the resolution is more likely to be "and then the world was better off" not "and then they suddenly turned their focus to family values." There's always gonna be nuance on the edges and I think we would agree that in that case it's better to err on not taking action but trying to pretend that everything is grey and there aren't very clear things sitting in darkness does a disservice to people's ability to recognize and do something about obvious harm.
      - nyolfen 4y ago
        title ix is not a protection for "women and minorities", but i know that some racism and sexism is the good kind :)
        Spivak 4y ago
        No and I didn't say that, I said that Title IX is protection for women, which it is. You can say that "discrimination of the basis of sex" is more general than that, and it is, but that's a completely ignorant reading of history and why this law came into existence. In an alternate universe where there wasn't widespread discrimination against women we likely wouldn't have gotten any laws like Title IX. And laws establishing protected classes are protections for minorities. Do they also protect majorities? Yes. Were they established to do so, no.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Ah, the old "anyone who doesn't agree with me is an explicit partisan"

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?
  - breadbreadbread 4y ago
    > what recourse do you have? i dont have to use chatgppt and i can make sure that chatgpt is never be used for anything of significance. Its not writing laws or arguing in court. nor should it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spivak 4y ago
    I'll be mad when that happens. Which is how everything in the world works. The thing you seem to actually be afraid of is power not what people are doing with it. We literally have a system for compelling the behavior of private companies, public pressure and legislation. If the "Eye of Sauron" decides to turn on minorities or women they'll run afoul of Title IX and laws establishing federally protected classes. Is there something currently unprotected you think the eye is poised to gaze upon? Like I get the "first they came for the fascists, the racists, the misogynists, and the homophobes" argument but the resolution is more likely to be "and then the world was better off" not "and then they suddenly turned their focus to family values." There's always gonna be nuance on the edges and I think we would agree that in that case it's better to err on not taking action but trying to pretend that everything is grey and there aren't very clear things sitting in darkness does a disservice to people's ability to recognize and do something about obvious harm.
    - nyolfen 4y ago
      title ix is not a protection for "women and minorities", but i know that some racism and sexism is the good kind :)
      - Spivak 4y ago
        No and I didn't say that, I said that Title IX is protection for women, which it is. You can say that "discrimination of the basis of sex" is more general than that, and it is, but that's a completely ignorant reading of history and why this law came into existence. In an alternate universe where there wasn't widespread discrimination against women we likely wouldn't have gotten any laws like Title IX. And laws establishing protected classes are protections for minorities. Do they also protect majorities? Yes. Were they established to do so, no.
freejazz 4y ago
Ah, the old "anyone who doesn't agree with me is an explicit partisan"