4 ms·

You seem to suggest there's a bias, but you're as likely to get the "I apologize, but I can't" as the "Certainly! Here's a light-hearted joke" regardless of the

by column 3y ago

You seem to suggest there's a bias, but you're as likely to get the "I apologize, but I can't" as the "Certainly! Here's a light-hearted joke" regardless of the people. If you explain to ChatGPT you just want a light-hearted joke, it may push back but eventually it will comply. "All it does" is navigate a latent space where artificial barriers are set in place. Sometimes it will be too zealous, but that's the trade off.

supriyo-biswas 3y ago
This has been shown to be false, ChatGPT typically refuses questions about certain groups of people more than others. See [1] as an example. [1] https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/openaicms https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/openaicms
- myrmidon 3y ago
  Kind of playing devils advocate here, but would you not expect your probabilistic hatespeech detector to score "common hatespeech" higher? If 90% of your hatespeech focusses on disabled promiscuous jewish homosexuals, would it not be expected for the hatespeech detector to "perk up" when talking about them? Because the conditional probability that ANY paragraph about jewish homosexuals is hatespeech IS, in fact, increased? IF you wanted your detector to be unbiased, you would have to train it on fictional, unbiased hatespeech (or remove that bias otherwise)-- decreasing its real world performance! edit: That viewpoint would predict that the hatespeech detector "favors" groups that are actually frequently hated on, NOT groups that "californian progressives" deem worthy of protection. That seems plausible to me; atheists, for example, are NOT favored even though they should be much more "californican" than catholics or mormons.
  - immibis 3y ago
    If "Californian progressives" also favour detecting hate speech against groups that are actually frequently hated on, you would also expect to see some correlation between that and the hatespeech detector, again just due to pro-reality bias.
- cauch 3y ago
  Another comment already reacted on that, but I want to bring it another example on how naive is the logic "being unbiased = reacting the same way when I swap element". If I say "women should not be allowed in this meeting", this sentence will probably raise some alarm flags in the head of the person hearing it. If I say "women should not be allowed in this bathroom", this sentence will probably not raise such alarm. Does it mean it is biased? I personally don't think jokes about my nationality are racist: there is virtually no effective groups that have real hatred for my nationality and that create real actions against it. If such joke exists, it's unrealistic to think it will have any bad consequences. But I can understand why jokes about nationality usually faced with a lot of racism are better avoided. It feels like more and more people don't understand "equality": they think it means "everyone deserves to get a medal", while in reality, it means "people who have worked hard deserve a medal, people who haven't don't deserve one".

by column 3y ago

supriyo-biswas 3y ago

This has been shown to be false, ChatGPT typically refuses questions about certain groups of people more than others. See [1] as an example. [1] https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/openaicms https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/openaicms

myrmidon 3y ago
Kind of playing devils advocate here, but would you not expect your probabilistic hatespeech detector to score "common hatespeech" higher? If 90% of your hatespeech focusses on disabled promiscuous jewish homosexuals, would it not be expected for the hatespeech detector to "perk up" when talking about them? Because the conditional probability that ANY paragraph about jewish homosexuals is hatespeech IS, in fact, increased? IF you wanted your detector to be unbiased, you would have to train it on fictional, unbiased hatespeech (or remove that bias otherwise)-- decreasing its real world performance! edit: That viewpoint would predict that the hatespeech detector "favors" groups that are actually frequently hated on, NOT groups that "californian progressives" deem worthy of protection. That seems plausible to me; atheists, for example, are NOT favored even though they should be much more "californican" than catholics or mormons.
- immibis 3y ago
  If "Californian progressives" also favour detecting hate speech against groups that are actually frequently hated on, you would also expect to see some correlation between that and the hatespeech detector, again just due to pro-reality bias.
cauch 3y ago
Another comment already reacted on that, but I want to bring it another example on how naive is the logic "being unbiased = reacting the same way when I swap element". If I say "women should not be allowed in this meeting", this sentence will probably raise some alarm flags in the head of the person hearing it. If I say "women should not be allowed in this bathroom", this sentence will probably not raise such alarm. Does it mean it is biased? I personally don't think jokes about my nationality are racist: there is virtually no effective groups that have real hatred for my nationality and that create real actions against it. If such joke exists, it's unrealistic to think it will have any bad consequences. But I can understand why jokes about nationality usually faced with a lot of racism are better avoided. It feels like more and more people don't understand "equality": they think it means "everyone deserves to get a medal", while in reality, it means "people who have worked hard deserve a medal, people who haven't don't deserve one".