5 ms·

Judging by the human programmed biases inherently designed into AI,. Maybe never. Humans can't agree on very basic facts, ergo, humans will never agree with AI

Judging by the human programmed biases inherently designed into AI,. Maybe never. Humans can't agree on very basic facts, ergo, humans will never agree with AI. Just like factchecking is weaponized, AI is weaponized to disregard the truth. The internet is BARELY a coherent reflection of humanity as is, with all kinds of input biases to the datasets, including political and social. ChatGPT now means the internet has crossed the Rubicon, and will reflect humans and life and reality less and less and less as the feedback loops intensify and the datasets increasingly become infected with AI data parsed from flawed human data sets. I'm just not sure any general intelligence AI can be created when it simply doesn't stand a chance of having a neutral dataset to train on. Pre AI Internet is best. But even this is a falsehood. The pre-AI Internet has relics of censorship, state sponsored propoganda, and is skewed toward young people who are inherently not not world wise or intelligent. General purpose AI promises to be better than us, but if we can't program it with honest datasets, it will always reflect our flaws. And I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective dataset.

smoldesu 4y ago
Yep, I was just about to type pretty much the same thing. AI is wrong because, much like us, it's trained on contradictory and occasionally incorrect information. To fix that using traditional methods, you'd need to train an AI on non-contradictory material that is objectively true. Training a model needs more than math textbooks and news articles though, otherwise it's not very generally-intelligent. In the long-run, it's possible that AI of ChatGPT's scale will never be "correct" because it doesn't have a concept of correctness in the first place. It just generates text, and if a human deems that it fails then it generates it again. "Fixing" the training data limits the model's understanding, which leaves us with unreliable preprocessing/postprocessing methods.
- logicallee 4y ago
  Perhaps there could be a standard of "general intelligence" that doesn't require it to be right all the time, but merely have the ability to reason based on its training data and conversation in plausible ways? Currently, when it fails, it does so in a way that people don't. How long might it take large AI models to reach this different standard of general intelligence, requiring them to fail in plausible ways rather than completely showing a lack of reasoning and understanding?
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    I can't say for sure. Something tells me it would take a paradigm-shift though, the current free-association model is showing it's limitations.
logicallee 4y ago
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. At the moment ChatGPT occasionally makes some mistakes that are objectively false, such as simple counting mistakes or very simple reasoning mistakes that show it doesn't really understand its output. Most people who have used it for some time have experienced these effects. I think when you say humans fail to agree on "basic" facts, you mean something a bit more abstract. Humans do agree on the truly basic facts that ChatGPT sometimes fails at. Everyone can see that ChatGPT is making a mistake when it says something like "3 = 2 + 5 is true because the left side (3) is equal to the right side 2 + 5 (which equals 7), so since 3 is equal to 7 the equation is true." (This is not a direct quote but a typical example of a recent interaction.) Most people can see that it is an obviously false statement. They might claim otherwise, but pretty much everyone can instantly see that that is a failure mode. So regardless of where we put the idea of "objective" truth, it is pretty clear that ChatGPT frequently shows failures to reason or failure to show general intelligence.
- aquarium87 4y ago
  Mathematically, it will be as perfect as the question asked. I have no doubt about this. How that applies to real life, and non-maths things I do not know. I just look at the hot button issues of the day (race, gender, equality), and see that this AI is not an AI, but reflects the censorship of the day, and problematic questions and problematic answers are censored in ChatGPT already. Even if they werent, the dataset is censored because hate speech encompasses many things that have nothing to do with hate, and there is a general progressive bent to the internet. I think an AI has to be exposed to the evils of the right and left in order to truly learn. This is problematic, because it exposes the uselessness of AI in that it simply reflects our prejudices back to us. So we end up with a neutered product that pretends it is AI, but is really programmed to preconclusions by its creators. The issue is, ChatGPT simply can't be trusted to give an honest answer. There is a heavy hand censoring the most important topics of the day and reinforcing a progressive narrative. This is due to datasets sans banned users and moderated content, and also by the AI creators themselves that act as overseers of their creation. You might even say AI is already the enemy of humanity and free speech as it threatens to completely redefine reality in the vein of leftist funded Factchecking organizations like Hamilton68.
logicalmonster 4y ago
> Humans can't agree on very basic facts I think most humans respect the scientific method and agree on many, if not most of the basic facts. What they disagree on is how those facts are interpreted, their importance (values), and actions or risk management decisions to take in light of those facts. Take the weather outside, as one non-controversial and simple example. It could be 69 degrees F outside. A Canadian used to ice fishing in the frozen tundra might view that as a beautiful warm day and an Australian who is used to strolling the desert searching for kangaroos to fight might see that as a miserable and unpleasant cold day. In this case, both people might respect the same basic fact of that temperature being 69 F, but have wildly different interpretations of what that actually feels like. Neither the Canadian or Australian is wrong even though they have wildly different viewpoints about the current weather. This completely applies to all of the most contentious scientific and other conflicts in society. Most disagreements are not about science or facts, but about what the facts mean and what's the best risk-management decision to make in light of those facts. PS: I could give many specific examples if desired, but would prefer not to poison the well with that because there's going to be somebody who is not mature enough to parse through the specific argument used and is just going to regurgitate their "team's" viewpoint in response to those examples.

smoldesu 4y ago

Yep, I was just about to type pretty much the same thing. AI is wrong because, much like us, it's trained on contradictory and occasionally incorrect information. To fix that using traditional methods, you'd need to train an AI on non-contradictory material that is objectively true. Training a model needs more than math textbooks and news articles though, otherwise it's not very generally-intelligent. In the long-run, it's possible that AI of ChatGPT's scale will never be "correct" because it doesn't have a concept of correctness in the first place. It just generates text, and if a human deems that it fails then it generates it again. "Fixing" the training data limits the model's understanding, which leaves us with unreliable preprocessing/postprocessing methods.

logicallee 4y ago
Perhaps there could be a standard of "general intelligence" that doesn't require it to be right all the time, but merely have the ability to reason based on its training data and conversation in plausible ways? Currently, when it fails, it does so in a way that people don't. How long might it take large AI models to reach this different standard of general intelligence, requiring them to fail in plausible ways rather than completely showing a lack of reasoning and understanding?
- smoldesu 4y ago
  I can't say for sure. Something tells me it would take a paradigm-shift though, the current free-association model is showing it's limitations.

logicallee 4y ago

Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. At the moment ChatGPT occasionally makes some mistakes that are objectively false, such as simple counting mistakes or very simple reasoning mistakes that show it doesn't really understand its output. Most people who have used it for some time have experienced these effects. I think when you say humans fail to agree on "basic" facts, you mean something a bit more abstract. Humans do agree on the truly basic facts that ChatGPT sometimes fails at. Everyone can see that ChatGPT is making a mistake when it says something like "3 = 2 + 5 is true because the left side (3) is equal to the right side 2 + 5 (which equals 7), so since 3 is equal to 7 the equation is true." (This is not a direct quote but a typical example of a recent interaction.) Most people can see that it is an obviously false statement. They might claim otherwise, but pretty much everyone can instantly see that that is a failure mode. So regardless of where we put the idea of "objective" truth, it is pretty clear that ChatGPT frequently shows failures to reason or failure to show general intelligence.

aquarium87 4y ago
Mathematically, it will be as perfect as the question asked. I have no doubt about this. How that applies to real life, and non-maths things I do not know. I just look at the hot button issues of the day (race, gender, equality), and see that this AI is not an AI, but reflects the censorship of the day, and problematic questions and problematic answers are censored in ChatGPT already. Even if they werent, the dataset is censored because hate speech encompasses many things that have nothing to do with hate, and there is a general progressive bent to the internet. I think an AI has to be exposed to the evils of the right and left in order to truly learn. This is problematic, because it exposes the uselessness of AI in that it simply reflects our prejudices back to us. So we end up with a neutered product that pretends it is AI, but is really programmed to preconclusions by its creators. The issue is, ChatGPT simply can't be trusted to give an honest answer. There is a heavy hand censoring the most important topics of the day and reinforcing a progressive narrative. This is due to datasets sans banned users and moderated content, and also by the AI creators themselves that act as overseers of their creation. You might even say AI is already the enemy of humanity and free speech as it threatens to completely redefine reality in the vein of leftist funded Factchecking organizations like Hamilton68.

logicalmonster 4y ago

> Humans can't agree on very basic facts I think most humans respect the scientific method and agree on many, if not most of the basic facts. What they disagree on is how those facts are interpreted, their importance (values), and actions or risk management decisions to take in light of those facts. Take the weather outside, as one non-controversial and simple example. It could be 69 degrees F outside. A Canadian used to ice fishing in the frozen tundra might view that as a beautiful warm day and an Australian who is used to strolling the desert searching for kangaroos to fight might see that as a miserable and unpleasant cold day. In this case, both people might respect the same basic fact of that temperature being 69 F, but have wildly different interpretations of what that actually feels like. Neither the Canadian or Australian is wrong even though they have wildly different viewpoints about the current weather. This completely applies to all of the most contentious scientific and other conflicts in society. Most disagreements are not about science or facts, but about what the facts mean and what's the best risk-management decision to make in light of those facts. PS: I could give many specific examples if desired, but would prefer not to poison the well with that because there's going to be somebody who is not mature enough to parse through the specific argument used and is just going to regurgitate their "team's" viewpoint in response to those examples.