3 ms·

When you clearly indicate you're not neutral, you lose all credibility. Nobody wants a ML model that gives them the climate warrior version of the "truth". Neut

When you clearly indicate you're not neutral, you lose all credibility. Nobody wants a ML model that gives them the climate warrior version of the "truth". Neutrality is extremely important in order to be broadly taken seriously. It's exactly the kind of criticism that's been leveled against chatGPT

kokanee 4y ago
Ah yes, I'll just reference the list of my non-neutral biases as I choose the moderation rules for my AI. My bias against swear words is neutral, so I will include that rule, but my bias against pollution is not neutral, so I will skip those moderation rules. Obviously categorizing beliefs into "neutral" and "not neutral" is impossible. Your statement is a classic example of the false consensus effect -- everyone thinks they are neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect
- haberman 4y ago
  > Obviously categorizing beliefs into "neutral" and "not neutral" is impossible. There is one distinction that matters a lot, and that is empirical vs. moral. Also known as vs. ought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). When exploring empirical claims, one can aspire for neutrality. Even if perfect neutrality is not possible, it's certainly possible to do better or worse at it. Moral claims cannot really be evaluated neutrally, I agree. But an AI striving for neutrality could attempt to avoid taking sides on contentious issues.
notahacker 4y ago
The irony with people talking about "neutrality" is the tendency of the people making such demands to be even more obsessed with distorting the input data to produce outcomes censored to take into account their viewpoint than the 'AI safety' and PR people. I mean, how much censorship (or artificial curation) would you need to avoid an ML model giving "the climate warrior version" of questions about whether the world was getting warmer?!

kokanee 4y ago

Ah yes, I'll just reference the list of my non-neutral biases as I choose the moderation rules for my AI. My bias against swear words is neutral, so I will include that rule, but my bias against pollution is not neutral, so I will skip those moderation rules. Obviously categorizing beliefs into "neutral" and "not neutral" is impossible. Your statement is a classic example of the false consensus effect -- everyone thinks they are neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

haberman 4y ago
> Obviously categorizing beliefs into "neutral" and "not neutral" is impossible. There is one distinction that matters a lot, and that is empirical vs. moral. Also known as vs. ought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). When exploring empirical claims, one can aspire for neutrality. Even if perfect neutrality is not possible, it's certainly possible to do better or worse at it. Moral claims cannot really be evaluated neutrally, I agree. But an AI striving for neutrality could attempt to avoid taking sides on contentious issues.

notahacker 4y ago

The irony with people talking about "neutrality" is the tendency of the people making such demands to be even more obsessed with distorting the input data to produce outcomes censored to take into account their viewpoint than the 'AI safety' and PR people. I mean, how much censorship (or artificial curation) would you need to avoid an ML model giving "the climate warrior version" of questions about whether the world was getting warmer?!