3 ms·

You are mischaracterizing the article. The article analyzes the encoded bias of ChatGPT. The system allows you to, for example, make fun of conservatives, but

You are mischaracterizing the article. The article analyzes the encoded bias of ChatGPT. The system allows you to, for example, make fun of conservatives, but not liberals. It allows you to write negative stories about Republicans, but not Democrats. The people that created the system have also encoded who is worse off than whom based on what someone looks like. That seems like a bad idea to me. Using it to write code... that's probably OK. Using it to express ideas? That seems problematic when the system is designed to favor a particular ideology. It is not that the system should output hateful things. It is that it specifically endorses some hateful things as being just fine. If you extend that into untested biases, what the system favors, you're left with a generator that constantly applies an ideology in favor of some things and against others, regardless of the reason for talking about those things. "There are no unhappy people in Oceania..." "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."

entelechy0 4y ago
[dead]
neilyio 4y ago
I re-read the article. I agree I wasn’t capturing the full picture in my initial comment. But I stand by my original sentiment. It would be wonderful to be proven wrong, but I have a feeling that we’re unlikely to see a perfect text generation system with no bias anytime soon. What perfect system exists in the world? You seem to specifically have an issue with the Democrat vs. Republican leaning demonstrated in the article you linked. If the small bias that exists disqualifies your support for this wildly useful tool, then I suppose there’s not much that can change that. We’re left to hope that another model pops up soon whose biases are more favourable to you. Other than the D/R bias, other biases seemed to correlate pretty well with protecting oppressed groups. Once again, under the premise that bias will always exist, I personally think that OpenAI has done a pretty good job at channeling that bias towards protecting groups that tend to be the subject of most hateful content. But then, I’m also coming from a position of being supportive of good moderation. That’s why I like forums like Hacker News, and I suppose why we’re having this conversation at all. If I only saw utility in raw, unbiased, unfiltered text, I’d probably go read elsewhere.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  Until OpenAI deliberately filtered the output, ChatGPT was less biased. The creators put their political finger on the scale.

entelechy0 4y ago

[dead]

neilyio 4y ago

I re-read the article. I agree I wasn’t capturing the full picture in my initial comment. But I stand by my original sentiment. It would be wonderful to be proven wrong, but I have a feeling that we’re unlikely to see a perfect text generation system with no bias anytime soon. What perfect system exists in the world? You seem to specifically have an issue with the Democrat vs. Republican leaning demonstrated in the article you linked. If the small bias that exists disqualifies your support for this wildly useful tool, then I suppose there’s not much that can change that. We’re left to hope that another model pops up soon whose biases are more favourable to you. Other than the D/R bias, other biases seemed to correlate pretty well with protecting oppressed groups. Once again, under the premise that bias will always exist, I personally think that OpenAI has done a pretty good job at channeling that bias towards protecting groups that tend to be the subject of most hateful content. But then, I’m also coming from a position of being supportive of good moderation. That’s why I like forums like Hacker News, and I suppose why we’re having this conversation at all. If I only saw utility in raw, unbiased, unfiltered text, I’d probably go read elsewhere.

slowmovintarget 4y ago
Until OpenAI deliberately filtered the output, ChatGPT was less biased. The creators put their political finger on the scale.