4 ms·

I think the bigger issue is that the racial/sexist/etc content can be shocking and immediately put someone off using the product, which I doubt is the case for

I think the bigger issue is that the racial/sexist/etc content can be shocking and immediately put someone off using the product, which I doubt is the case for the output being “too American.”

skissane 3y ago
> I think the bigger issue is that the racial/sexist/etc content can be shocking and immediately put someone off using the product, which I doubt is the case for the output being “too American.” OpenAI didn't just fine-tune it to avoid blatant racial/sexist/etc content, they openly claim to have invested a lot of effort in fine-tuning it to avoid subtle biases in those areas. And to be honest, a lot of people do feel "put off" by poorly localised products – I am annoyed by software that defaults to US Letter and inches and I have to manually change it to A4 and metric, or which has hardcoded MM/DD/YYYY date formats. ChatGPT gives me the same feeling. Sometimes one just has to endure it because there is no better option. Under international law, "racial discrimination" is defined to include "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin..." [0] – so US-centricism may fit under that definition. [0] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 1(1). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Maybe it’s different in international law but in US law “national origin” is just a term of art for race or ethnicity. Anyway, no matter how annoying seeing feet and inches may be for some users I don’t think it will have the same effect as the AI praising Hitler.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Maybe it’s different in international law but in US law “national origin” is just a term of art for race or ethnicity. Under Australian discrimination law, "national origin" means your country of birth, or the country of birth of your ancestors. [0] The Australian definition is (at least in part) derived from English discrimination law, as decided by the House of Lords in a 1972 case. [1] I believe the usual definition in international law is the same. "National origin" is related to "nationality/citizenship", but unlike the latter it is fixed at the time of birth – subsequent acts of naturalisation, renunciation or deprivation by change one's nationality, but they cannot change one's national origin. I can't find a precise legal definition of the term under US law, but some US legal definitions appear largely identical to the Australian/English definition, see e.g. how District of Columbia law defines the term [2] > Anyway, no matter how annoying seeing feet and inches may be for some users I don’t think it will have the same effect as the AI praising Hitler. Well, as I said, OpenAI didn't just train ChatGPT to refuse to praise Hitler, they also went to a lot of effort to tune it to avoid subtle bias against certain identifiable groups. What I'm talking about isn't the same as the former but is clearly related to the latter [0] Macabenta v Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1643; 90 FCR 202 https://jade.io/article/116118 https://jade.io/article/116118 [1] Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6b4 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6... [2] https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/OHR%20Enforcement%20Guidance%20FINAL%20-%2018-02%20-National%20Origin%20and%20Race.pdf https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publicat...
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      Wikipedia links a pretty handy DOJ pamphlet here: https://books.google.com/books?id=21bNNU3bcugC&q=national+origin&pg=PA1#v=snippet&q=national%20origin&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=21bNNU3bcugC&q=national+or... > Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture, or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin. "Term of art for race or ethnicity" may be a crude gloss on that but I don't think it's really inaccurate. The closest thing in this brochure to what you're talking about is that in certain cases people have a right to an interpreter but I find it highly unlikely that any court is going to find it discriminatory if you spell it "color" instead of "colour" or use "football" to mean gridiron football.
      - skissane 3y ago
        Well, that US definition is actually broader than the Australian/English one. Notice it says: > Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture, or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country... The parts I've italicised are exactly the definition of "national origin" discrimination in Australian and English law. From what you are quoting, the US definition includes the Australian/English one, but also goes beyond it. > I find it highly unlikely that any court is going to find it discriminatory if you spell it "color" instead of "colour" Courts don't just decide whether something is or isn't discrimination–they decide whether it is illegal discrimination. Not everything that meets the bare legal definition of "discrimination" (on some prohibited ground) is illegal – something may meet that definition, but nonetheless still be legal, because it is justifiable, or the harm it causes is insufficiently serious, or it is permitted or required by some other law. I doubt any Court would uphold a discrimination case based solely on English spelling differences – but that's not because spelling is per se outside the definitional scope of "national origin discrimination" – obviously it is an aspect of the "culture, or language" part of the definition you cited. Rather, I expect they'd rule that even though it is discrimination, it is legally permissible discrimination, either justifiable by the unreasonable expense of doing otherwise, and/or because the modicum of harm caused by it is too trivial to merit intervention by the legal system. But what counts as illegal discrimination is not really relevant here, because OpenAI has spent a lot of resources on trying to remove certain subtle biases in their AI models, which arguably goes well beyond what they are legally required to do. I'm criticising OpenAI's decisions, but I'm not claiming they ought to be prosecuted or sued over them. I'm simply citing legal definitions as informative as to what words mean, even in a context which goes beyond the strictly legal.
- wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
  If you read the comments here, the complaints are either to PC & US centric, or to sexist. Reads to me like there is no way to win it for openai, there is going to be people complaining. I use it a lot for code, and at times to summarize research on certain topics, but never run into any weird feedback, so depends on your usage.
- nkrisc 3y ago
  But nothing about any of those examples is “discrimination”.
  - skissane 3y ago
    I agree they aren't direct discrimination, but almost anything can constitute indirect discrimination. A poorly localised product can have a disparate impact on foreign users, and as such indirectly discriminate against them. Even as indirect discrimination, I'm not claiming it rises to the level of being legally actionable – but when OpenAI tries to eradicate subtle bias from an AI model, that's got nothing to do with legally actionable discrimination either, since it would be unlikely to be legally actionable if they decided not to invest in that. I think one problem with this topic, is a lot of people don't understand the difference between "discrimination", "unethical discrimination", and "illegal discrimination". Some discrimination is both illegal and unethical; some discrimination is legal yet unethical; some discrimination is both legally and ethically justifiable. But many just blur the concepts of "discrimination" and "illegal discrimination" together.
- scrollaway 3y ago
  An example of poorly localised product which has real world consequences. Canva is a fantastic design software. If you type “business card” in templates, it has the standard us business card size but no European one. If you modify it to European sizes manually (closer to credit card size) it no longer recognises that this is a business card and no longer offers to print it on business card paper. In other words, despite the service being available in Europe, and the service offering business card printing, it does not offer European business card printing.
  - drstewart 3y ago
    Canva is based in Australia
    - scrollaway 3y ago
      And that changes what I said how?
  - skissane 3y ago
    I've never used Canva. But are you saying it only has the US business card size? Because Canva is an Australian company, and Australia's business card size is different from the US. It seems weird that an Australian company would support the US standard for something but not the Australian one??? There isn't a single European business card size, there are three different standards [0] – Western Europe (except for Scandinavia) is mainly 85 mm x 55 mm, Scandinavia is 90 mm x 55 mm (which is also used in Australia and New Zealand), while most of Eastern Europe is 90 mm x 50 mm – all three are different from the US/Canada standard size of 88.9 mm x 50.8 mm, although the Eastern European size gets pretty close (1.1mm wider and 0.8mm shorter). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_card#Dimensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_card#Dimensions
    - scrollaway 3y ago
      Yup it only has US template, and it’s impossible to print “business cards” if not using a business card template. Without going through support that is.

I think the bigger issue is that the racial/sexist/etc content can be shocking and immediately put someone off using the product, which I doubt is the case for the output being “too American.”

skissane 3y ago

> I think the bigger issue is that the racial/sexist/etc content can be shocking and immediately put someone off using the product, which I doubt is the case for the output being “too American.” OpenAI didn't just fine-tune it to avoid blatant racial/sexist/etc content, they openly claim to have invested a lot of effort in fine-tuning it to avoid subtle biases in those areas. And to be honest, a lot of people do feel "put off" by poorly localised products – I am annoyed by software that defaults to US Letter and inches and I have to manually change it to A4 and metric, or which has hardcoded MM/DD/YYYY date formats. ChatGPT gives me the same feeling. Sometimes one just has to endure it because there is no better option. Under international law, "racial discrimination" is defined to include "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin..." [0] – so US-centricism may fit under that definition. [0] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 1(1). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

emodendroket 3y ago
Maybe it’s different in international law but in US law “national origin” is just a term of art for race or ethnicity. Anyway, no matter how annoying seeing feet and inches may be for some users I don’t think it will have the same effect as the AI praising Hitler.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Maybe it’s different in international law but in US law “national origin” is just a term of art for race or ethnicity. Under Australian discrimination law, "national origin" means your country of birth, or the country of birth of your ancestors. [0] The Australian definition is (at least in part) derived from English discrimination law, as decided by the House of Lords in a 1972 case. [1] I believe the usual definition in international law is the same. "National origin" is related to "nationality/citizenship", but unlike the latter it is fixed at the time of birth – subsequent acts of naturalisation, renunciation or deprivation by change one's nationality, but they cannot change one's national origin. I can't find a precise legal definition of the term under US law, but some US legal definitions appear largely identical to the Australian/English definition, see e.g. how District of Columbia law defines the term [2] > Anyway, no matter how annoying seeing feet and inches may be for some users I don’t think it will have the same effect as the AI praising Hitler. Well, as I said, OpenAI didn't just train ChatGPT to refuse to praise Hitler, they also went to a lot of effort to tune it to avoid subtle bias against certain identifiable groups. What I'm talking about isn't the same as the former but is clearly related to the latter [0] Macabenta v Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1643; 90 FCR 202 https://jade.io/article/116118 https://jade.io/article/116118 [1] Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6b4 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6... [2] https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/OHR%20Enforcement%20Guidance%20FINAL%20-%2018-02%20-National%20Origin%20and%20Race.pdf https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publicat...
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Wikipedia links a pretty handy DOJ pamphlet here: https://books.google.com/books?id=21bNNU3bcugC&q=national+origin&pg=PA1#v=snippet&q=national%20origin&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=21bNNU3bcugC&q=national+or... > Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture, or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin. "Term of art for race or ethnicity" may be a crude gloss on that but I don't think it's really inaccurate. The closest thing in this brochure to what you're talking about is that in certain cases people have a right to an interpreter but I find it highly unlikely that any court is going to find it discriminatory if you spell it "color" instead of "colour" or use "football" to mean gridiron football.
    - skissane 3y ago
      Well, that US definition is actually broader than the Australian/English one. Notice it says: > Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture, or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country... The parts I've italicised are exactly the definition of "national origin" discrimination in Australian and English law. From what you are quoting, the US definition includes the Australian/English one, but also goes beyond it. > I find it highly unlikely that any court is going to find it discriminatory if you spell it "color" instead of "colour" Courts don't just decide whether something is or isn't discrimination–they decide whether it is illegal discrimination. Not everything that meets the bare legal definition of "discrimination" (on some prohibited ground) is illegal – something may meet that definition, but nonetheless still be legal, because it is justifiable, or the harm it causes is insufficiently serious, or it is permitted or required by some other law. I doubt any Court would uphold a discrimination case based solely on English spelling differences – but that's not because spelling is per se outside the definitional scope of "national origin discrimination" – obviously it is an aspect of the "culture, or language" part of the definition you cited. Rather, I expect they'd rule that even though it is discrimination, it is legally permissible discrimination, either justifiable by the unreasonable expense of doing otherwise, and/or because the modicum of harm caused by it is too trivial to merit intervention by the legal system. But what counts as illegal discrimination is not really relevant here, because OpenAI has spent a lot of resources on trying to remove certain subtle biases in their AI models, which arguably goes well beyond what they are legally required to do. I'm criticising OpenAI's decisions, but I'm not claiming they ought to be prosecuted or sued over them. I'm simply citing legal definitions as informative as to what words mean, even in a context which goes beyond the strictly legal.
wouldbecouldbe 3y ago
If you read the comments here, the complaints are either to PC & US centric, or to sexist. Reads to me like there is no way to win it for openai, there is going to be people complaining. I use it a lot for code, and at times to summarize research on certain topics, but never run into any weird feedback, so depends on your usage.
nkrisc 3y ago
But nothing about any of those examples is “discrimination”.
- skissane 3y ago
  I agree they aren't direct discrimination, but almost anything can constitute indirect discrimination. A poorly localised product can have a disparate impact on foreign users, and as such indirectly discriminate against them. Even as indirect discrimination, I'm not claiming it rises to the level of being legally actionable – but when OpenAI tries to eradicate subtle bias from an AI model, that's got nothing to do with legally actionable discrimination either, since it would be unlikely to be legally actionable if they decided not to invest in that. I think one problem with this topic, is a lot of people don't understand the difference between "discrimination", "unethical discrimination", and "illegal discrimination". Some discrimination is both illegal and unethical; some discrimination is legal yet unethical; some discrimination is both legally and ethically justifiable. But many just blur the concepts of "discrimination" and "illegal discrimination" together.
scrollaway 3y ago
An example of poorly localised product which has real world consequences. Canva is a fantastic design software. If you type “business card” in templates, it has the standard us business card size but no European one. If you modify it to European sizes manually (closer to credit card size) it no longer recognises that this is a business card and no longer offers to print it on business card paper. In other words, despite the service being available in Europe, and the service offering business card printing, it does not offer European business card printing.
- drstewart 3y ago
  Canva is based in Australia
  - scrollaway 3y ago
    And that changes what I said how?
- skissane 3y ago
  I've never used Canva. But are you saying it only has the US business card size? Because Canva is an Australian company, and Australia's business card size is different from the US. It seems weird that an Australian company would support the US standard for something but not the Australian one??? There isn't a single European business card size, there are three different standards [0] – Western Europe (except for Scandinavia) is mainly 85 mm x 55 mm, Scandinavia is 90 mm x 55 mm (which is also used in Australia and New Zealand), while most of Eastern Europe is 90 mm x 50 mm – all three are different from the US/Canada standard size of 88.9 mm x 50.8 mm, although the Eastern European size gets pretty close (1.1mm wider and 0.8mm shorter). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_card#Dimensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_card#Dimensions
  - scrollaway 3y ago
    Yup it only has US template, and it’s impossible to print “business cards” if not using a business card template. Without going through support that is.