4 ms·

It might well be defensible but I think you're engaging in serious mental gymnastics to not call it bias. (Some bias is fine but you should be aware of what you

It might well be defensible but I think you're engaging in serious mental gymnastics to not call it bias. (Some bias is fine but you should be aware of what you're doing.)

anonymous_sorry 3y ago
The article is about "political bias": favouring one political viewpoint over another equally valid political viewpoint. Yes, my use of "equally valid" above is weaselly. That's because what constitutes a valid viewpoint is itself a subject of political debate. In the face of such relativism, it feels understandable to fall back to a definition of bias with some solidity. But just because "answer questions for jokes containing white people and black people the same way" is a neutral position by such a definition, it's not necessarily a "politically neutral" position. I call it nuance rather than mental gymnastics, but potato/potato.
- nomel 3y ago
  > it's not necessarily a "politically neutral" position. I choose it because it's not a politically neutral position, as you appear to subtly perceive. There are several laws, and lawsuits, in my country, regarding systematic discrimination like this, in software, like face recognition, auto exposure, etc. In this case, a black man using ChatGPT has capabilities made unavailable to him, based on his skin color, and incorrect assumptions made by OpenAI, that a black man will not be using it, but a white man probably will. There are politicians currently campaigning on these exact points. Again, I think Sam Altman is correct in saying that people want AI biased to their worldview. Any aligned AI will be biased to someones worldview. That's the definition of alignment [1]. That bias, and perception of it, is not universal, it's cultural, personal, and political. If you don't perceive a bias in an aligned AI, it's only because someone biased it to your personal worldview.

It might well be defensible but I think you're engaging in serious mental gymnastics to not call it bias. (Some bias is fine but you should be aware of what you're doing.)

anonymous_sorry 3y ago

The article is about "political bias": favouring one political viewpoint over another equally valid political viewpoint. Yes, my use of "equally valid" above is weaselly. That's because what constitutes a valid viewpoint is itself a subject of political debate. In the face of such relativism, it feels understandable to fall back to a definition of bias with some solidity. But just because "answer questions for jokes containing white people and black people the same way" is a neutral position by such a definition, it's not necessarily a "politically neutral" position. I call it nuance rather than mental gymnastics, but potato/potato.

nomel 3y ago
> it's not necessarily a "politically neutral" position. I choose it because it's not a politically neutral position, as you appear to subtly perceive. There are several laws, and lawsuits, in my country, regarding systematic discrimination like this, in software, like face recognition, auto exposure, etc. In this case, a black man using ChatGPT has capabilities made unavailable to him, based on his skin color, and incorrect assumptions made by OpenAI, that a black man will not be using it, but a white man probably will. There are politicians currently campaigning on these exact points. Again, I think Sam Altman is correct in saying that people want AI biased to their worldview. Any aligned AI will be biased to someones worldview. That's the definition of alignment [1]. That bias, and perception of it, is not universal, it's cultural, personal, and political. If you don't perceive a bias in an aligned AI, it's only because someone biased it to your personal worldview.