4 ms·

>“I didn’t anticipate using chatbots in search engines, which is a bonkers idea that everyone is now racing to do to.” >‘If the input data is biased, then the

>“I didn’t anticipate using chatbots in search engines, which is a bonkers idea that everyone is now racing to do to.” >‘If the input data is biased, then the output can amplify such biases.’ Didn't bias exist before AI chatbots? I don't like the idea of censoring a technology because it could show bias without an acknowledgement of the bias present in all information. Where is a source today of unbiased information?

krapp 4y ago
>I don't like the idea of censoring a technology because it could show bias without an acknowledgement of the bias present in all information. Ok. Bias is present in all information. I'm not aware that anyone was denying that, but there you go. Is that acknowledgement sufficient or will you require an explicit disclaimer to that effect in every conversation had about the subject, for the forseeable future? >Where is a source today of unbiased information? I don't believe anyone claimed there was one. Do you believe the existence of an unbiased source of information is required before any attempt can be made to correct the bias in any specific source of information?
- Jimmc414 4y ago
  >Ok. Bias is present in all information. I'm not aware that anyone was denying that, but there you go. >Do you believe the existence of an unbiased source of information is required before any attempt can be made to correct the bias in any specific source of information? If bias in information must be fixed and all information has bias then all information must be fixed. That may be the case but you cannot escape the bias of the fact checkers so we will end up where we started? How do you fix bias without creating bias?
  - krapp 4y ago
    >If bias in information must be fixed and all information has bias then all information must be fixed. No. It is possible to focus on one thing at a time, or to address similar problems in tandem. It isn't the case that we must remove bias from all forms of information, or else remove no bias from any form of information. And even if "fixing all information" in general was a worthwhile goal, it doesn't place limitations on the effort to identify or address the specific problem of bias in AI. > That may be the case but you cannot escape the bias of the fact checkers so we will end up where we started? No. We won't end up where we started. Not all biases are equal to all others. Bias towards racism doesn't have the same effect as bias against racism, for instance nor does a bias towards science lead to the same place as a bias towards religion. >How do you fix bias without creating bias? The context you're ignoring in this conversation is relevant to all of your questions.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
_8j50 4y ago
It says right there in your quote that amplification is the problem. I would add, inability for users to critically examine facts to determine bias is also an issue.
motoxpro 4y ago
There isn't one. I think the point is that people take it as unbiased. "GPT hallucinated" "GPT said this was true and it wasn't" "GPT has a political leaning" People want it to be "unbiased" and "factual" but that doesn't exist. The world is not a math problem.
- Jimmc414 4y ago
  Fair enough. But isn't this how search engines already work?
fl0ps 4y ago
It's interesting to note that the premise of DIARI is "[to] foster the development of new AI systems created by and for Black people in the US and Africa. DAIR will prioritize leadership by members of these communities and create spaces where contributors are able to do this work with psychological safety." which explicitly declares a substantive bias itself. Will this also be amplified?

krapp 4y ago

>I don't like the idea of censoring a technology because it could show bias without an acknowledgement of the bias present in all information. Ok. Bias is present in all information. I'm not aware that anyone was denying that, but there you go. Is that acknowledgement sufficient or will you require an explicit disclaimer to that effect in every conversation had about the subject, for the forseeable future? >Where is a source today of unbiased information? I don't believe anyone claimed there was one. Do you believe the existence of an unbiased source of information is required before any attempt can be made to correct the bias in any specific source of information?

Jimmc414 4y ago
>Ok. Bias is present in all information. I'm not aware that anyone was denying that, but there you go. >Do you believe the existence of an unbiased source of information is required before any attempt can be made to correct the bias in any specific source of information? If bias in information must be fixed and all information has bias then all information must be fixed. That may be the case but you cannot escape the bias of the fact checkers so we will end up where we started? How do you fix bias without creating bias?
- krapp 4y ago
  >If bias in information must be fixed and all information has bias then all information must be fixed. No. It is possible to focus on one thing at a time, or to address similar problems in tandem. It isn't the case that we must remove bias from all forms of information, or else remove no bias from any form of information. And even if "fixing all information" in general was a worthwhile goal, it doesn't place limitations on the effort to identify or address the specific problem of bias in AI. > That may be the case but you cannot escape the bias of the fact checkers so we will end up where we started? No. We won't end up where we started. Not all biases are equal to all others. Bias towards racism doesn't have the same effect as bias against racism, for instance nor does a bias towards science lead to the same place as a bias towards religion. >How do you fix bias without creating bias? The context you're ignoring in this conversation is relevant to all of your questions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

_8j50 4y ago

It says right there in your quote that amplification is the problem. I would add, inability for users to critically examine facts to determine bias is also an issue.

motoxpro 4y ago

There isn't one. I think the point is that people take it as unbiased. "GPT hallucinated" "GPT said this was true and it wasn't" "GPT has a political leaning" People want it to be "unbiased" and "factual" but that doesn't exist. The world is not a math problem.

Jimmc414 4y ago
Fair enough. But isn't this how search engines already work?

fl0ps 4y ago

It's interesting to note that the premise of DIARI is "[to] foster the development of new AI systems created by and for Black people in the US and Africa. DAIR will prioritize leadership by members of these communities and create spaces where contributors are able to do this work with psychological safety." which explicitly declares a substantive bias itself. Will this also be amplified?