4 ms·
<yawn> Surprise! LLMs that are (some portion of) the sum of human textual output can assemble morally bad as well as morally good things. To me this is like poi
by fl0ps 4y ago
<yawn> Surprise! LLMs that are (some portion of) the sum of human textual output can assemble morally bad as well as morally good things. To me this is like pointing out that horrific things are on the internet, and accessible to people.
Horrible people are going to make our machines do horrible things.
I am eager for this to stop being newsworthy and await the veneer of morality being replaced by unbiased real morality in our software. That will probably never happen in my lifetime because morality (as we know it) incorporates bias by definition.
- hummus_bae 4y ago> I am eager for this to stop being newsworthy and await the veneer of morality being replaced by unbiased real morality in our software. Given recent trends in the development of AI, this is not something I would be holding my breath for.
- foverzar 4y agoI'll upvote this, some healthy bashing with the reminder of what specifically we are dealing with here is definitely lacking among all that hype.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- layer8 4y agoSee also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem. Few philosophers are moral absolutists (i.e. believe that “real unbiased morality” exists). There will be a continuous dispute about which morals to imbue our AI products with.