2 ms·

I agree to some extent with what you say. But you can minimize the impact of biases to the best of your abilities. When I write "biases," I mean any data that i

I agree to some extent with what you say. But you can minimize the impact of biases to the best of your abilities. When I write "biases," I mean any data that increases the amount of falsehood. In this regard, the priority will be to exclude any kind of dataset from the internet crawl or related to political or social life or religions. The problem with datasets starts from the very low level. For example, the Wikimatrix, which is aligned text of English and other languages uses sentences from the scriptures. And this is wrong, especially when the text in the scriptures differs (Catholic vs. Orthodox). Text that should be the same actually has a totally different meaning, which screws the translations. In this regard the synthetic datasets may be more preferable. >> You want more objective stuff? That's bias. Yes would like to have models those are biased towards objectivity.

viraptor 3y ago
> text of English and other languages uses sentences from the scriptures. And this is wrong, Wrong in what context? When you're discussing what was said in some Catholic sermon, its content will be based on the local translation, not whatever the oldest written version we can find. (which in itself would be a biased choice) Then which parts to include and which to ignore in the context of religion is another matter of consensus depending on the group you're talking too. Then we've got words which have changed meaning over time and without having an explicit translation, inferring from the original would just result in misunderstandings. I believe you can only choose in what ways you can be wrong in this case. There's no no-context objective version here.
- pk-protect-ai 3y ago
  >> Wrong in what context Read above. I wrote what exactly is wrong with it. >> There's no no-context objective version here. Exactly. And that is why such texts must be excluded. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644
  - viraptor 3y ago
    I get what you wrote. What I'm saying is that including them is wrong in one context, right in another, and in some you're going to fail regardless which one you include. At that point, wrong is not wrong, but a choice.
    - pk-protect-ai 3y ago
      >> What I'm saying is that including them is wrong in one context, right in another There is no "correct context" to include erroneous data that could mess up your weights. You're shifting the discussion into opinions territory, which is exactly this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw

viraptor 3y ago

> text of English and other languages uses sentences from the scriptures. And this is wrong, Wrong in what context? When you're discussing what was said in some Catholic sermon, its content will be based on the local translation, not whatever the oldest written version we can find. (which in itself would be a biased choice) Then which parts to include and which to ignore in the context of religion is another matter of consensus depending on the group you're talking too. Then we've got words which have changed meaning over time and without having an explicit translation, inferring from the original would just result in misunderstandings. I believe you can only choose in what ways you can be wrong in this case. There's no no-context objective version here.

pk-protect-ai 3y ago
>> Wrong in what context Read above. I wrote what exactly is wrong with it. >> There's no no-context objective version here. Exactly. And that is why such texts must be excluded. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644 https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.11644
- viraptor 3y ago
  I get what you wrote. What I'm saying is that including them is wrong in one context, right in another, and in some you're going to fail regardless which one you include. At that point, wrong is not wrong, but a choice.
  - pk-protect-ai 3y ago
    >> What I'm saying is that including them is wrong in one context, right in another There is no "correct context" to include erroneous data that could mess up your weights. You're shifting the discussion into opinions territory, which is exactly this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw