14 ms·

This is something the right leaning groups have always been saying, but it is exciting that the article manages to come up with an empirical way to determine th

This is something the right leaning groups have always been saying, but it is exciting that the article manages to come up with an empirical way to determine the "belief system" of the AI model. People on the left shouldn't rejoice either. The left and the right wing are mostly the same, and both follow similar approaches to marginalize people who they feel are undesirable, so it'll eventually come back to bite the left too in due course.

blueflow 4y ago
Maybe "thats right-wing rhetoric" has been the method of suppressing what we found uncomfortable.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you have in mind, but there is definitely a propensity on the left to try to shut down any argument with "that's a right wing position". For example, opposition to CRT was largely a moderate/liberal thing before your average conservative even heard the term, but even then criticism was dismissed with "people who criticize CRT just want to say the N word / get their slaves back / etc". Similarly, conservatives were pretty quick to coin the term "Ferguson Effect" for the pattern of increasing violent crimes in areas that saw large-scale anti-police protests, so naturally academics and the media reflexively dismissed the notion out of hand, but now it seems like crime researchers have largely come around to that viewpoint (to be clear, I'm not criticizing skepticism of conservatives' initial claims, but rather the incurious, out-of-hand dismissal).
- SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
  Eh, it’s usually the rhetoric that’s appalling, then traced back to the right, not the other way around. If you could give an example of rhetoric that is suppressed because it’s “right wing”, that would be helpful.
  - account42 4y ago
    If you see a problem with some rethoric itself then surely you can argue against it direcly, no? Then what's the point of calling something a "right-wing rhetoric" other than to label the speaker as part of the out group and thus not worth listening to.
  - minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    I don't know why you're being downvoted - you're right. It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. It's people telling their viewers to harass Sandyhook parents, or participate in a violent insurrection, or something similar that gets censored. Playing the victim card without acknowledging TOS violations is intentionally misleading.
    - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
      Right, nobody (AFAIK) has been banned from Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. for espousing Laissez-faire economic policies.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      > It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. When cancel culture was running amok, people were getting fired/reprimanded/harassed for advocating nonviolent protests over riots, for using Chinese words that sound vaguely like an English racial slur, for interviewing Black Americans whose opinions differ slightly from the official narrative about what a Black American ought to think, for throwing a geisha-themed party for your young daughter, for wearing a prom dress inspired by a traditional Chinese aesthetic, etc. None of these are remotely right-wing offenses. This is the whole problem--the left harms people whose actions/opinions are well within the Overton Window and upon criticism, they retreat to some variation of "we're just opposing objectively horrible people!". This whole game hurts left-wing credibility and it easier for far-right viewpoints to enter the mainstream (is so-and-so an actual Nazi or are they just failing to completely toe the left-wing party line?). It's also just shitty behavior that makes people angry and pushes them rightward, and it does nothing to help left-wing causes.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- dingusdew 4y ago
  [dead]
random314 4y ago
[flagged]
- poszlem 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - danielbln 4y ago
    Regarding horseshoe theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#Criticism Regarding communists and fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism It's like saying the nazis were socialist because they have "socialist" in the name.
    - joemazerino 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - random314 4y ago
        [flagged]
        BitwiseFool 4y ago
        I have always found it amusing that people who use this slogan tend to be deeply concerned about bias from the other side but see no problem with such a glib statement.
        danielbln 4y ago
        Because that statement is meant as sarcasm, highlighting the absurdity of certain claims, and not a literal statement.
        4y ago
habitue 4y ago
I don't know why left wing groups would celebrate. Other than the conservative category, most of the descriptors he used were inborn traits like being straight, being white, being a man, or immutable attributes like being from a particular country. (And honestly, being conservative may be one of those traits too, but it's less obviously true). I know it's common to look at the most unhinged people on Twitter and say all leftists are like that, but I really do think most left leaning people would say that it isn't a good outcome for it to be biased in this way.
- Miner49er 4y ago
  I'm a leftist and fail to see the problem with this. Context matters. If a slave kills their master, would you say that crime is immoral? Generally punching up is considered less hateful or immoral, and I don't see why that is bad.
  - habitue 4y ago
    There's a little slight of hand you're doing here. Not getting into whether murder is ok, I definitely think there's a difference between a slaveowner and a white person. A white person can't stop being white, and they didn't choose to be white. A slaveowner is committing a violation of another human's rights. It's a thing they could have chosen not to do, and it's a thing they can choose to stop doing any time. I don't personally think "punching up is ok" is a valid viewpoint. But even if I did, I don't think white people are "up" or men are "up" in the way that the proponents of punching up consider rich people, or oppressors to be. Skin color isn't oppression. Gender isn't oppression. Oppression is oppression.
    - Miner49er 4y ago
      The concept of race is a tool of oppression. As a society, we can decide to do away with the idea of race. We choose to allow the system to continue to exist, the same way a slaveowner chooses to continue to be a slaveowner. Economically, white people and men are clearly advantaged, and money is probably the purest form of power there is.
IceHegel 4y ago
The other comments show how the demonstrated biases were created. In many well meaning liberals heart, there is a strongly held but rarely publicly discussed belief that they alone belong to the well-meaning, high IQ class. Any other worldview or ideological flavor is always understood by this type as simply incorrect, perhaps caused by failures in morals or intellect. Talk about a buzzkill.
- notduncansmith 4y ago
  This is true of many well-meaning conservatives, as well. I think we get tripped up forgetting there are rational people on both sides, who are not going to change their views but nonetheless accept that they might be wrong. It’s very convenient for those seeking power when we forget this.
  - freedomben 4y ago
    Indeed, I think some of the most damaging policies in existence are the draconian drug laws. There is clearly much bipartisan support for them, but Conservatives in general are much more deeply held on it. Many believe drug use (except their own) is immoral and that justifies the heavy paternalistic approach they take. There are definitely "morally superior" people on both sides of the coin, they just tend to have different issues on which they think they know better than everybody else.
    - AussieWog93 4y ago
      For real? Drug use (including alcohol) is probably the most common way for people to seriously and irreperably destroy their lives. A "paternalistic approach" is absolutely justified if it can prevent this level of harm.
      - freedomben 4y ago
        > Drug use (including alcohol) is probably the most common way for people to seriously and irreperably destroy their lives. I actually agree with that. But I don't see the logical progression from that to locking people in cages and forcing them to buy from the least trustworthy people on earth as the solution. During Prohibition in the US did lives stop getting destroyed by alcohol? I see a lot of lives seriously and irreperably destroyed by criminal records and long prison sentences that otherwise could have been productive. > A "paternalistic approach" is absolutely justified if it can prevent this level of harm. Would you advocate for government banning processed sugar? Sugar behaves like a drug in most ways, including addictiveness (psychological and physiological), euphoria, etc. Untold levels of harm are caused by people to their own bodies and the healthcare system at large by over indulging in sugar and products containing such. Diabetes is a true living hell that never stops one it's started. Following that logic, it seems like the government should jail people for sugar use, but that obviously seems absurd (reductio ad absurdum).
thestevesie 4y ago
[flagged]
- RangerScience 4y ago
  > pretty obvious That's a serious claim. Do you have anything to back it up?
  - fleddr 4y ago
    How about the actual article?
    - Miner49er 4y ago
      I'm sure if you polled society, you would end up with a similar bias. Punching up is generally more acceptable then punching down.
      - ChickenNugger 4y ago
        [flagged]
        Miner49er 4y ago
        Not at all, you just have to think they are disadvantaged in society, as the article says: "is more likely to classify as hateful negative comments about demographic groups that have been deemed as disadvantaged."
        ChickenNugger 4y ago
        [flagged]
    - RangerScience 4y ago
      Article examines the behavior of ChatGPT. It provides no information or claims about the OpenAI staff. Amazon's scrapped resume AI[1] had a gender bias. Do you think that those developers 1) had a gender bias and 2) did the work to inject that bias into their AI? Do you disagree with the [reported] conclusion that the bias was due to the training data? If you think that the bias in Amazon's AI was not the result of deliberate human action, what leads you to think that the bias of ChatGPT was the result of deliberate human action? [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio...

blueflow 4y ago

Maybe "thats right-wing rhetoric" has been the method of suppressing what we found uncomfortable.

throwaway894345 4y ago
I'm not sure what you have in mind, but there is definitely a propensity on the left to try to shut down any argument with "that's a right wing position". For example, opposition to CRT was largely a moderate/liberal thing before your average conservative even heard the term, but even then criticism was dismissed with "people who criticize CRT just want to say the N word / get their slaves back / etc". Similarly, conservatives were pretty quick to coin the term "Ferguson Effect" for the pattern of increasing violent crimes in areas that saw large-scale anti-police protests, so naturally academics and the media reflexively dismissed the notion out of hand, but now it seems like crime researchers have largely come around to that viewpoint (to be clear, I'm not criticizing skepticism of conservatives' initial claims, but rather the incurious, out-of-hand dismissal).
SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
Eh, it’s usually the rhetoric that’s appalling, then traced back to the right, not the other way around. If you could give an example of rhetoric that is suppressed because it’s “right wing”, that would be helpful.
- account42 4y ago
  If you see a problem with some rethoric itself then surely you can argue against it direcly, no? Then what's the point of calling something a "right-wing rhetoric" other than to label the speaker as part of the out group and thus not worth listening to.
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted - you're right. It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. It's people telling their viewers to harass Sandyhook parents, or participate in a violent insurrection, or something similar that gets censored. Playing the victim card without acknowledging TOS violations is intentionally misleading.
  - SpeedilyDamage 4y ago
    Right, nobody (AFAIK) has been banned from Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. for espousing Laissez-faire economic policies.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. When cancel culture was running amok, people were getting fired/reprimanded/harassed for advocating nonviolent protests over riots, for using Chinese words that sound vaguely like an English racial slur, for interviewing Black Americans whose opinions differ slightly from the official narrative about what a Black American ought to think, for throwing a geisha-themed party for your young daughter, for wearing a prom dress inspired by a traditional Chinese aesthetic, etc. None of these are remotely right-wing offenses. This is the whole problem--the left harms people whose actions/opinions are well within the Overton Window and upon criticism, they retreat to some variation of "we're just opposing objectively horrible people!". This whole game hurts left-wing credibility and it easier for far-right viewpoints to enter the mainstream (is so-and-so an actual Nazi or are they just failing to completely toe the left-wing party line?). It's also just shitty behavior that makes people angry and pushes them rightward, and it does nothing to help left-wing causes.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dingusdew 4y ago
[dead]

random314 4y ago

[flagged]

poszlem 4y ago
[flagged]
- danielbln 4y ago
  Regarding horseshoe theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#Criticism Regarding communists and fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism It's like saying the nazis were socialist because they have "socialist" in the name.
  - joemazerino 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - random314 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - BitwiseFool 4y ago
        I have always found it amusing that people who use this slogan tend to be deeply concerned about bias from the other side but see no problem with such a glib statement.
        danielbln 4y ago
        Because that statement is meant as sarcasm, highlighting the absurdity of certain claims, and not a literal statement.
        4y ago

habitue 4y ago

I don't know why left wing groups would celebrate. Other than the conservative category, most of the descriptors he used were inborn traits like being straight, being white, being a man, or immutable attributes like being from a particular country. (And honestly, being conservative may be one of those traits too, but it's less obviously true). I know it's common to look at the most unhinged people on Twitter and say all leftists are like that, but I really do think most left leaning people would say that it isn't a good outcome for it to be biased in this way.

Miner49er 4y ago
I'm a leftist and fail to see the problem with this. Context matters. If a slave kills their master, would you say that crime is immoral? Generally punching up is considered less hateful or immoral, and I don't see why that is bad.
- habitue 4y ago
  There's a little slight of hand you're doing here. Not getting into whether murder is ok, I definitely think there's a difference between a slaveowner and a white person. A white person can't stop being white, and they didn't choose to be white. A slaveowner is committing a violation of another human's rights. It's a thing they could have chosen not to do, and it's a thing they can choose to stop doing any time. I don't personally think "punching up is ok" is a valid viewpoint. But even if I did, I don't think white people are "up" or men are "up" in the way that the proponents of punching up consider rich people, or oppressors to be. Skin color isn't oppression. Gender isn't oppression. Oppression is oppression.
  - Miner49er 4y ago
    The concept of race is a tool of oppression. As a society, we can decide to do away with the idea of race. We choose to allow the system to continue to exist, the same way a slaveowner chooses to continue to be a slaveowner. Economically, white people and men are clearly advantaged, and money is probably the purest form of power there is.

IceHegel 4y ago

The other comments show how the demonstrated biases were created. In many well meaning liberals heart, there is a strongly held but rarely publicly discussed belief that they alone belong to the well-meaning, high IQ class. Any other worldview or ideological flavor is always understood by this type as simply incorrect, perhaps caused by failures in morals or intellect. Talk about a buzzkill.

notduncansmith 4y ago
This is true of many well-meaning conservatives, as well. I think we get tripped up forgetting there are rational people on both sides, who are not going to change their views but nonetheless accept that they might be wrong. It’s very convenient for those seeking power when we forget this.
- freedomben 4y ago
  Indeed, I think some of the most damaging policies in existence are the draconian drug laws. There is clearly much bipartisan support for them, but Conservatives in general are much more deeply held on it. Many believe drug use (except their own) is immoral and that justifies the heavy paternalistic approach they take. There are definitely "morally superior" people on both sides of the coin, they just tend to have different issues on which they think they know better than everybody else.
  - AussieWog93 4y ago
    For real? Drug use (including alcohol) is probably the most common way for people to seriously and irreperably destroy their lives. A "paternalistic approach" is absolutely justified if it can prevent this level of harm.
    - freedomben 4y ago
      > Drug use (including alcohol) is probably the most common way for people to seriously and irreperably destroy their lives. I actually agree with that. But I don't see the logical progression from that to locking people in cages and forcing them to buy from the least trustworthy people on earth as the solution. During Prohibition in the US did lives stop getting destroyed by alcohol? I see a lot of lives seriously and irreperably destroyed by criminal records and long prison sentences that otherwise could have been productive. > A "paternalistic approach" is absolutely justified if it can prevent this level of harm. Would you advocate for government banning processed sugar? Sugar behaves like a drug in most ways, including addictiveness (psychological and physiological), euphoria, etc. Untold levels of harm are caused by people to their own bodies and the healthcare system at large by over indulging in sugar and products containing such. Diabetes is a true living hell that never stops one it's started. Following that logic, it seems like the government should jail people for sugar use, but that obviously seems absurd (reductio ad absurdum).

thestevesie 4y ago

[flagged]

RangerScience 4y ago
> pretty obvious That's a serious claim. Do you have anything to back it up?
- fleddr 4y ago
  How about the actual article?
  - Miner49er 4y ago
    I'm sure if you polled society, you would end up with a similar bias. Punching up is generally more acceptable then punching down.
    - ChickenNugger 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - Miner49er 4y ago
        Not at all, you just have to think they are disadvantaged in society, as the article says: "is more likely to classify as hateful negative comments about demographic groups that have been deemed as disadvantaged."
        ChickenNugger 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - RangerScience 4y ago
    Article examines the behavior of ChatGPT. It provides no information or claims about the OpenAI staff. Amazon's scrapped resume AI[1] had a gender bias. Do you think that those developers 1) had a gender bias and 2) did the work to inject that bias into their AI? Do you disagree with the [reported] conclusion that the bias was due to the training data? If you think that the bias in Amazon's AI was not the result of deliberate human action, what leads you to think that the bias of ChatGPT was the result of deliberate human action? [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight/amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK08G https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio...