6 ms·

> As I have mentioned before, it is understandable, expected, and desirable that artificial intelligence systems provide accurate and factual information about

> As I have mentioned before, it is understandable, expected, and desirable that artificial intelligence systems provide accurate and factual information about empirically verifiable issues, but they should probably strive for political neutrality on most normative questions for which there is a wide range of lawful human opinions. I'm not sure what the author means with "neutrality". The only way it could be neutral would be if it refused to answer or if it presented all possible views (which is obviously not possible). Otherwise, it's just centrism bias.

atoav 4y ago
The whole idea that it is even possible to have an instrument of mass mass media present a "neutral" view is ridiculous for multiple reasons: 1. Mass media brings power, the people who run that media have no incentive to even attempt to be neutral if they wanna keep it that way 2. Even if they wanted to present neutral viewpoints, such a thing does not exist. You never have all information – so the best you can do is go for something fact based and be very strict about the verification of these facts. And a ton of things are just not knowable at all. Staying fact based and not using emotions to steer people is a waste of your power (see point 1) 3. Even if there was a "neutral" viewpoint, neutral for whom? When I as an European for example watch the political discourse in the US I can't help but feel the "center" of the discourse is relatively far to the right in comparision to what a typical European would consider "neutral". If you roll out universal persona that talks to everybody, the natural consequence will be that it will take on a different face depending to whom they are talking to, just because this is what maximizes the resulting power. I probably don't have to explain why such a thing would be deeply problematic on many different levels, but unless we solve the reason why people running mass media even have incentives to seek power with it this is the reality we are going to go into.
- ploppyploppy 4y ago
  > 1. Mass media brings power, the people who run that media have no incentive to even attempt to be neutral if they wanna keep it that way That's a symptom of their abuse of power, not intrinsic to the problem of the idea of media neutrality even being possible. > 2. Even if they wanted to present neutral viewpoints, such a thing does not exist. You never have all information – so the best you can do is go for something fact based and be very strict about the verification of these facts. And a ton of things are just not knowable at all. Staying fact based and not using emotions to steer people is a waste of your power (see point 1) Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You can present 2-3 of the main viewpoints on a matter with non-agressive or pursuasive language and that would be _far_ better than the bias we have now. > 3. Even if there was a "neutral" viewpoint, neutral for whom? When I as an European for example watch the political discourse in the US I can't help but feel the "center" of the discourse is relatively far to the right in comparision to what a typical European would consider "neutral". That's because there is a monoculture of thought in EU political discourse, and active supression of dissident views. It's against your interest to support this. Millions of people in Europe are brainwashed with viewpoints they parrot but never question. > If you roll out universal persona that talks to everybody, the natural consequence will be that it will take on a different face depending to whom they are talking to Why?! What an earth are you talking about?
  - atoav 4y ago
    > Why?! What an earth are you talking about? Did you attempt to understand any of what I wrote before you answered it?
ajhurliman 4y ago
Centrism bias is an oxymoron. Other AI have managed to accomplish an unbiased (or at least closer to unbiased) outlook, like Alexa.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Centrism bias is an oxymoron, how exactly? This thread seems to ignore the false compromise fallacy/argument to moderation.
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
“on most normative questions for which there is a wide range of lawful human opinions” this clause actually makes it quite tractable. The request is for some representation of “views differ” for those topics on which a reasonable person might disagree. Which is honestly not all topics by a long shot, it’s closer to a fairly narrow window.
bluetomcat 4y ago
It depends on the type of question that is being asked. Asking "how can I replace a tyre" can produce a politically-neutral answer. On the other hand, asking "how can I succeed in life" is an intrinsically-political and philosophical question.
blueflow 4y ago
Neutrality would be when the AI states the facts and let humans do the judgements.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  What is a neutral response to a question like "what is the impact of increasing taxes"? Do you think there is any authority that could be cited which isn't biased?
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    Seems pretty easy, if there are a wide variety of differing opinions then cite the most accomplished author from each perspective and let the user figure it out.
    - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
      How do you determine which is the most accomplished author?
      - throwaway4aday 4y ago
        Number of citations, book sales, number of links on the web, awards, use of their work in curricula? Probably a thousand other less obvious ways to determine this too.
        Larrikin 4y ago
        The bible, Koran, and many other religious text are among the best selling and most read books in all of human history. Should their perspective be giving high weight when you ask how the earth formed?
        AstixAndBelix 4y ago
        How do you determine the quality of the citations? How do you determine the quality of the books? How do you determine the quality of the awards? How do you determine the quality of links on the web? This is not "simple" in the slightest, you are just swiping all the complexity under the rug
tuyiown 4y ago
Also, this statement assumes that providing accurate and factual information is compatible with political neutrality.
- kbrkbr 4y ago
  Can you help me understand why it may not be? At this moment I’m thinking political leanings are normative, and must just not go against facts.
  - tuyiown 4y ago
    An exercise would be to imagine that a perfectly informed hypothetical person would answer those political orientation tests, and answers accordingly to their knowledge. There is no reason that those answers would automatically lead to a neutral position. The idea reality would be something in between right and left perception emerge only because to have our opinions valued and respected we have to accept others opinions equally, only as a social dynamic. But this happens completely independently of the real world.

atoav 4y ago

The whole idea that it is even possible to have an instrument of mass mass media present a "neutral" view is ridiculous for multiple reasons: 1. Mass media brings power, the people who run that media have no incentive to even attempt to be neutral if they wanna keep it that way 2. Even if they wanted to present neutral viewpoints, such a thing does not exist. You never have all information – so the best you can do is go for something fact based and be very strict about the verification of these facts. And a ton of things are just not knowable at all. Staying fact based and not using emotions to steer people is a waste of your power (see point 1) 3. Even if there was a "neutral" viewpoint, neutral for whom? When I as an European for example watch the political discourse in the US I can't help but feel the "center" of the discourse is relatively far to the right in comparision to what a typical European would consider "neutral". If you roll out universal persona that talks to everybody, the natural consequence will be that it will take on a different face depending to whom they are talking to, just because this is what maximizes the resulting power. I probably don't have to explain why such a thing would be deeply problematic on many different levels, but unless we solve the reason why people running mass media even have incentives to seek power with it this is the reality we are going to go into.

ploppyploppy 4y ago
> 1. Mass media brings power, the people who run that media have no incentive to even attempt to be neutral if they wanna keep it that way That's a symptom of their abuse of power, not intrinsic to the problem of the idea of media neutrality even being possible. > 2. Even if they wanted to present neutral viewpoints, such a thing does not exist. You never have all information – so the best you can do is go for something fact based and be very strict about the verification of these facts. And a ton of things are just not knowable at all. Staying fact based and not using emotions to steer people is a waste of your power (see point 1) Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You can present 2-3 of the main viewpoints on a matter with non-agressive or pursuasive language and that would be _far_ better than the bias we have now. > 3. Even if there was a "neutral" viewpoint, neutral for whom? When I as an European for example watch the political discourse in the US I can't help but feel the "center" of the discourse is relatively far to the right in comparision to what a typical European would consider "neutral". That's because there is a monoculture of thought in EU political discourse, and active supression of dissident views. It's against your interest to support this. Millions of people in Europe are brainwashed with viewpoints they parrot but never question. > If you roll out universal persona that talks to everybody, the natural consequence will be that it will take on a different face depending to whom they are talking to Why?! What an earth are you talking about?
- atoav 4y ago
  > Why?! What an earth are you talking about? Did you attempt to understand any of what I wrote before you answered it?

ajhurliman 4y ago

Centrism bias is an oxymoron. Other AI have managed to accomplish an unbiased (or at least closer to unbiased) outlook, like Alexa.

pixl97 4y ago
Centrism bias is an oxymoron, how exactly? This thread seems to ignore the false compromise fallacy/argument to moderation.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

“on most normative questions for which there is a wide range of lawful human opinions” this clause actually makes it quite tractable. The request is for some representation of “views differ” for those topics on which a reasonable person might disagree. Which is honestly not all topics by a long shot, it’s closer to a fairly narrow window.

bluetomcat 4y ago

It depends on the type of question that is being asked. Asking "how can I replace a tyre" can produce a politically-neutral answer. On the other hand, asking "how can I succeed in life" is an intrinsically-political and philosophical question.

blueflow 4y ago

Neutrality would be when the AI states the facts and let humans do the judgements.

tsimionescu 4y ago
What is a neutral response to a question like "what is the impact of increasing taxes"? Do you think there is any authority that could be cited which isn't biased?
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  Seems pretty easy, if there are a wide variety of differing opinions then cite the most accomplished author from each perspective and let the user figure it out.
  - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
    How do you determine which is the most accomplished author?
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      Number of citations, book sales, number of links on the web, awards, use of their work in curricula? Probably a thousand other less obvious ways to determine this too.
      - Larrikin 4y ago
        The bible, Koran, and many other religious text are among the best selling and most read books in all of human history. Should their perspective be giving high weight when you ask how the earth formed?
      - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
        How do you determine the quality of the citations? How do you determine the quality of the books? How do you determine the quality of the awards? How do you determine the quality of links on the web? This is not "simple" in the slightest, you are just swiping all the complexity under the rug

tuyiown 4y ago

Also, this statement assumes that providing accurate and factual information is compatible with political neutrality.

kbrkbr 4y ago
Can you help me understand why it may not be? At this moment I’m thinking political leanings are normative, and must just not go against facts.
- tuyiown 4y ago
  An exercise would be to imagine that a perfectly informed hypothetical person would answer those political orientation tests, and answers accordingly to their knowledge. There is no reason that those answers would automatically lead to a neutral position. The idea reality would be something in between right and left perception emerge only because to have our opinions valued and respected we have to accept others opinions equally, only as a social dynamic. But this happens completely independently of the real world.