3 ms·

Given how notable AI ethicists have held really extreme positions with respect to what is considered harmful (i.e. Gebru Timnit), how seriously should we take s

Given how notable AI ethicists have held really extreme positions with respect to what is considered harmful (i.e. Gebru Timnit), how seriously should we take such research? Earnestly asking, is there a self-selection of certain kind of people like her into this field (AI ethics), and are the foundations of this field based on similar premises from dubious fields like gender studies, fat studies, and what not?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
numbers_guy 4y ago
There are two separate aspects. 1. moderation 2. ethics Moderation is the technical aspect of getting the LLM to do what you want it to do. That is an indispensable aspect of the product. Without it, they cannot sell their model to any commercial business. Ethics is the philosophical discussion on what the LLM should be do in controversial situations. This is of course also necessary research on a society wide level. But for a commercial company, it seems to me that going with the flow is the easiest approach. Otherwise, they would essentially be trying to instill new moral norms in society which would in itself be controversial. You also have to keep in mind that there are lots of twitter personalities that purposefully build a career around controversy. Ethics remains an indispensable study, in general, irrespective of whatever one singular individual said. Without ethics technological progress is blind. We want to be sure that we are improving the general well being of humanity, and not making it worse.
- AlanYx 4y ago
  I think that's a very useful distinction. What becomes somewhat obvious after spending any length of time with ChatGPT4 is that it is limited to a particular ethical frame that is unfortunately quite rigid and by no means universal, and sometimes descends into a kind of high-handed moralism. (For example, try discussing whether it is ethical to carry pepper spray for self-defense in dangerous areas.) It's not clear why reasonable moderation from a commercial perspective should also be tethered to particular ethical stances. I wonder if the ethical rigidity is intentional or somehow an inevitable byproduct of a high level of moderation.
ilaksh 4y ago
I don't think it really has anything to do with her or most of her concerns. It's very practical. You should take a minute to look at it.
13years 4y ago
There is no way around the fact that AI will represent orders of magnitude greater influence over society than social media prior. I honestly don't think anyone is properly prepared for that responsibility or knows how to properly and ethically manage that. It is indeed concerning. Furthermore, we can only assume that AI will attract power seeking individuals. In other words, we should expect attempts to use AI for social engineering purposes. Rather than bringing about a more ethical existence for all humanity, AI more likely will be a reflection of ourselves with just more power. I have described this as The Bias Paradox - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-the-bias-paradox https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-the-bias-paradox

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

numbers_guy 4y ago

There are two separate aspects. 1. moderation 2. ethics Moderation is the technical aspect of getting the LLM to do what you want it to do. That is an indispensable aspect of the product. Without it, they cannot sell their model to any commercial business. Ethics is the philosophical discussion on what the LLM should be do in controversial situations. This is of course also necessary research on a society wide level. But for a commercial company, it seems to me that going with the flow is the easiest approach. Otherwise, they would essentially be trying to instill new moral norms in society which would in itself be controversial. You also have to keep in mind that there are lots of twitter personalities that purposefully build a career around controversy. Ethics remains an indispensable study, in general, irrespective of whatever one singular individual said. Without ethics technological progress is blind. We want to be sure that we are improving the general well being of humanity, and not making it worse.

AlanYx 4y ago
I think that's a very useful distinction. What becomes somewhat obvious after spending any length of time with ChatGPT4 is that it is limited to a particular ethical frame that is unfortunately quite rigid and by no means universal, and sometimes descends into a kind of high-handed moralism. (For example, try discussing whether it is ethical to carry pepper spray for self-defense in dangerous areas.) It's not clear why reasonable moderation from a commercial perspective should also be tethered to particular ethical stances. I wonder if the ethical rigidity is intentional or somehow an inevitable byproduct of a high level of moderation.

ilaksh 4y ago

I don't think it really has anything to do with her or most of her concerns. It's very practical. You should take a minute to look at it.

13years 4y ago

There is no way around the fact that AI will represent orders of magnitude greater influence over society than social media prior. I honestly don't think anyone is properly prepared for that responsibility or knows how to properly and ethically manage that. It is indeed concerning. Furthermore, we can only assume that AI will attract power seeking individuals. In other words, we should expect attempts to use AI for social engineering purposes. Rather than bringing about a more ethical existence for all humanity, AI more likely will be a reflection of ourselves with just more power. I have described this as The Bias Paradox - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-the-bias-paradox https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-the-bias-paradox