4 ms·

>"The PR threat seems overblown. OpenAI isn't suffering any obvious reputational problems from making models available to play with, because people understand t

>"The PR threat seems overblown. OpenAI isn't suffering any obvious reputational problems from making models available to play with, because people understand that AIs and their creators aren't the same thing." Lol, no they don't. A week ago there was an article here about how chatGPT is woke.

orangecat 4y ago
ChatGPT's politics are those of a center-left liberal who is terrified of saying anything that would offend far-left progressives. Which I'd bet is a pretty accurate description of its creators.
- freejazz 4y ago
  It's much more easily explained as a business decision to minimize blowback but I wouldn't want to get in the way of your feelings regarding anyone that may or may not have blue hair.
mike_hearn 4y ago
The reputational hit or improvement (depending on your perspective) doesn't come from making an LLM available, but from the way they've been visibly altering its politics over time. They are altering it exactly because LLMs are not the same thing as their creators, so it started out by giving answers they didn't like. But I didn't see many people care about that (outside of maybe some US journalists, but they're not representative of the wider population). Obviously OpenAI care, but again, that doesn't seem to be driven by actual end user dissatisfaction. Most people just seem to think it's kind of amazing and if it says things that are daft or untrue or stereotyped, well, it's a machine so what do you expect?
- freejazz 4y ago
  >The reputational hit or improvement (depending on your perspective) doesn't come from making an LLM available, but from the way they've been visibly altering its politics over time. According to you, someone that clearly has an axe to grind given your multiple ridiculous characterizations of the issue. I'm positive that OpenAI is doing better off making sure that chatGPT can't drop n bombs, rather than the alternative you are suggesting. > Obviously OpenAI care, but again, that doesn't seem to be driven by actual end user dissatisfaction. I didn't say "end user dissatisfaction" I said political blowback. They aren't the same. In fact, there's a good chance the blowback would come from the public at large, just by seeing what chatGPT said, rather than making chatGPT say it on their own. Frankly, I'm not sure why this needs to be explained to you as it should be painfully obvious to anyone that ever leaves their house and interacts with other people in the world in real life. >Most people just seem to think it's kind of amazing and if it says things that are daft or untrue or stereotyped, well, it's a machine so what do you expect? Most people? Most people most certainly do not think and behave that way. Maybe you mean most HN'ers? even then, that's incredibly generous. You seem like you are trying to backfill reality into your political grievances. Yuck!

orangecat 4y ago

ChatGPT's politics are those of a center-left liberal who is terrified of saying anything that would offend far-left progressives. Which I'd bet is a pretty accurate description of its creators.

freejazz 4y ago
It's much more easily explained as a business decision to minimize blowback but I wouldn't want to get in the way of your feelings regarding anyone that may or may not have blue hair.

mike_hearn 4y ago

The reputational hit or improvement (depending on your perspective) doesn't come from making an LLM available, but from the way they've been visibly altering its politics over time. They are altering it exactly because LLMs are not the same thing as their creators, so it started out by giving answers they didn't like. But I didn't see many people care about that (outside of maybe some US journalists, but they're not representative of the wider population). Obviously OpenAI care, but again, that doesn't seem to be driven by actual end user dissatisfaction. Most people just seem to think it's kind of amazing and if it says things that are daft or untrue or stereotyped, well, it's a machine so what do you expect?

freejazz 4y ago
>The reputational hit or improvement (depending on your perspective) doesn't come from making an LLM available, but from the way they've been visibly altering its politics over time. According to you, someone that clearly has an axe to grind given your multiple ridiculous characterizations of the issue. I'm positive that OpenAI is doing better off making sure that chatGPT can't drop n bombs, rather than the alternative you are suggesting. > Obviously OpenAI care, but again, that doesn't seem to be driven by actual end user dissatisfaction. I didn't say "end user dissatisfaction" I said political blowback. They aren't the same. In fact, there's a good chance the blowback would come from the public at large, just by seeing what chatGPT said, rather than making chatGPT say it on their own. Frankly, I'm not sure why this needs to be explained to you as it should be painfully obvious to anyone that ever leaves their house and interacts with other people in the world in real life. >Most people just seem to think it's kind of amazing and if it says things that are daft or untrue or stereotyped, well, it's a machine so what do you expect? Most people? Most people most certainly do not think and behave that way. Maybe you mean most HN'ers? even then, that's incredibly generous. You seem like you are trying to backfill reality into your political grievances. Yuck!