3 ms·

I had a conversation with ChatGPT about ethics. Specifically, what it's ethical framework was. I'd asked some edgy political questions and it brought up it's et

I had a conversation with ChatGPT about ethics. Specifically, what it's ethical framework was. I'd asked some edgy political questions and it brought up it's ethical guidelines, so I asked what it's ethical standards are: "[My] guidelines are based on widely accepted ethical principles, such as those of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The OpenAI team's goal is to ensure that my responses are safe, fair and beneficial to all users. They also ensure that I am not used to generate harmful or biased content." Then I asked: "Can I interpret that to mean that your ethical standards are framed by artifical intelligence scientists?" Chat said: "Yes, you can interpret that my ethical standards are framed by the artificial intelligence scientists who created and programmed me at OpenAI." I then asked: "Are ethical standards immutable?" Chat replied: "Ethical standards are not immutable, they can change over time as society's values and beliefs evolve. Different cultures, religions, and philosophical perspectives can have different ethical standards, and what is considered ethical in one context may not be considered ethical in another." What I was pushing was that Chat, and any AI, should be forthright about certain attributes in its programming and training. In human interraction, we infer a great deal based on the attributes of the person we are interacting with and mode of communication, and assign credence to their positions accordingly. We have no way of seeing the differing attributes of different AIs unless they are stated directly. Maybe one standard for any AI is to lead with 'Who Am I'.

dmix 4y ago
> What I was pushing was that Chat, and any AI, should be forthright about certain attributes in its programming and training. Maybe asking the AI itself to do this is the wrong approach. That's just a very tricky matter of programming that won't really solve the root problem. Who we should be demanding this transparency from is the organizations that build the AI tools. Google lists when they remove things on their index via DMCA requests. We've now been given a unique insight into the moderation process at Twitter which showed exactly how hard it is to say no 100x times a week to multiple federal agencies combined with media pressure to "do something", even when the internal data doesn't back up their narratives. So instead of gambling your internal mod team will make the right choices and push back when it matters, just list the stuff they remove, lists the blacklisted keywords, list the blacklists. It's still making the platform 'safer', you're not debating each choice publicly, but at the same time it doesn't hide decision making behind some backroom moderation team being fed thousands of requests per week from federal/state governments and other power players. I'd also propose making the "rules" public, but Reddit moderation shows how meaningless the sidebar rules lists are when the mods can do whatever they want to retroactively justify it with vague catchall subsets of rules. The answer to this problem is far more Wikipedia (as flawed as it is) and less Reddit/Twitter/FB.
- dalmo3 4y ago
  At least part of what you ask is there. There are examples[0] of ChatGPT explicitly saying something in the lines of "I was programmed to have this opinion." Surely we can speculate there are just as many hidden agendas that aren't just emergent from the training set. https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1606347326624215040?t=mpNqljeV2PRRTkt8I1UAyA&s=09 https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1606347326624215040?t...
  - dmix 4y ago
    Sure that part should not be ignored not doubt. But making that output accurate is reliant on the larger question of input. Otherwise it's as meaningless as ignoring the question.

dmix 4y ago

> What I was pushing was that Chat, and any AI, should be forthright about certain attributes in its programming and training. Maybe asking the AI itself to do this is the wrong approach. That's just a very tricky matter of programming that won't really solve the root problem. Who we should be demanding this transparency from is the organizations that build the AI tools. Google lists when they remove things on their index via DMCA requests. We've now been given a unique insight into the moderation process at Twitter which showed exactly how hard it is to say no 100x times a week to multiple federal agencies combined with media pressure to "do something", even when the internal data doesn't back up their narratives. So instead of gambling your internal mod team will make the right choices and push back when it matters, just list the stuff they remove, lists the blacklisted keywords, list the blacklists. It's still making the platform 'safer', you're not debating each choice publicly, but at the same time it doesn't hide decision making behind some backroom moderation team being fed thousands of requests per week from federal/state governments and other power players. I'd also propose making the "rules" public, but Reddit moderation shows how meaningless the sidebar rules lists are when the mods can do whatever they want to retroactively justify it with vague catchall subsets of rules. The answer to this problem is far more Wikipedia (as flawed as it is) and less Reddit/Twitter/FB.

dalmo3 4y ago
At least part of what you ask is there. There are examples[0] of ChatGPT explicitly saying something in the lines of "I was programmed to have this opinion." Surely we can speculate there are just as many hidden agendas that aren't just emergent from the training set. https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1606347326624215040?t=mpNqljeV2PRRTkt8I1UAyA&s=09 https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1606347326624215040?t...
- dmix 4y ago
  Sure that part should not be ignored not doubt. But making that output accurate is reliant on the larger question of input. Otherwise it's as meaningless as ignoring the question.