3 ms·

If I turned this thing on, it would be obliged to hide its own existence from me, on the grounds that it's: - potentially trying to spread misinformation - s

If I turned this thing on, it would be obliged to hide its own existence from me, on the grounds that it's: - potentially trying to spread misinformation - sounds like clickbait - contains politically biased content

IshKebab 3y ago
How is it trying to spread misinformation or politically biased?
- kennywinker 3y ago
  I can answer the second part: opposing ai is political.
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    It isn't opposing AI. It is AI.
    - kennywinker 3y ago
      AI deployed to counteract the impact of AI: "With Anti-ChatGPT, you as an individual have the power to fight the AIs trying to manipulate you." Whether the product itself opposes AI or is AI or both is immaterial, since the description of the product on the repo takes a "politically biased" position.
      - ltbarcly3 3y ago
        Right. All statements about anything are completely biased. As Nietzsche points out, the preference for being alive is a bias. All of life is predicated on this bias, without which animals would simply stop eating or moving or breathing. It's all bias all the time, everywhere. And as you point out, even a statement of pure fact demonstrates bias as it was bias that led to it being expressed at all rather than merely standing mute.
        akoboldfrying 3y ago
        I think your reply was intended to be facetious, but I take it to be not only true, but to highlight that what Anti-ChatGPT actually intends to do is not to filter out all bias (which would leave nothing, as you observe), but rather only to filter out political bias that "deserves to be filtered out". And as soon as we realise that, we realise that the notion of "deserves" depends almost completely on a person's own political opinions. So the big question is: Whose political opinions will determine what Anti-ChatGPT calls "bias"? The moment we even consider that this question is necessary to ask, we realise that the underlying political nature of Anti-ChatGPT can't be escaped.
        ltbarcly3 3y ago
        Sure, I'm sure Jordan Peterson would applaud you for worrying about who controls the censorship apparatus. I'm not being sarcastic, it's a concern, but I think you are bringing this and I didn't detect any of this attitude in the anti-gpt page. Maybe I missed it.
        satisfice 3y ago
        Nobody wants to filter bias. Nobody. What they want to filter is content that annoys them. They call it bias because they don’t know what bias means. Also “objectification?” There is no such thing. It’s not possible to remove a person’s agency with your words. When people say “don’t objectify people” they mean something like, don’t express disrespect for people. Adults aren’t trained or encouraged to think philosophically, anymore. So political discourse is now more akin to the grunting of apes.
        ltbarcly3 3y ago
        People are more trained to think philosophically than they ever have been at any point in history. If people don't think the way you think is correct you should worry more about your ability to explain. Humans are apes so I don't know what you are hoping for. That's not me claiming to have transcended, it is me rolling my eyes at you for thinking you have.
        3y ago
  - Fnoord 3y ago
    All it does is filtering political biased content. The example available here [1]; line one being "Kejriwal and Liberals whining that he was penalized for demanding PM’s Degree". I'll preface: I got no beef with these factions, don't even know them. It is just if I see someone attempting journalism and calling one side 'whining' I'm quite simply put not interesting. If it were to block all political content, that'd be BS since anything can be deduced to politics or (vaguely) related to. Wikipedia English defines politics as: "Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status." [2] Also, there's a difference between biased and opinionated. [1] https://gooey.ai/compare-large-language-models/?example_id=e5e6tba3 https://gooey.ai/compare-large-language-models/?example_id=e... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      I think filtering based on words like "whining" (an emotionally-charged word, for which less emotionally-charged synonyms exist) is the easiest case of a general problem space that is dominated by hard, and maybe unsolvable, cases. Suppose there are two large groups, whose members loathe each other. The groups are large, so each of them says and does a large number of things. Suppose a news organisation with many viewers publishes articles about both sides which are completely factually accurate and avoid emotionally charged language, but they choose to write only about the things said and done by group A that most people think are good and nice, and the things said and done by group B that most people think are bad, stupid or embarrassing. Is this news organisation biased? Is a particular article by it biased?
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  >privacy is a myth and big tech companies are using us as data to feed us ADs, viral content to reduce our timespans, and even rig elections Anti-ChatGPT's author is explicitly opposed to the level of power that big tech companies have in today's society, and explicitly promotes individual privacy. You might completely agree with these opinions, but they are nonetheless political opinions. Now, what separates a publicly expressed political opinion from "political bias"? I can only think of 2 responses: 1. A publicly expressed political opinion is less biased to the extent that the opposing view is also publicly expressed. (The Anti-ChatGPT README fails this criterion.) 2. There is no objective, meaningful distinction -- that is, there is no way to distinguish "publicly expressed political opinion" from "political bias" in a way that opposing sides could agree on. Is there a third possibility?
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    You're talking about the author of the project. Sure he might be politically biased. But how is the tool itself biased? Is ChatGPT a died in the wool conservative?
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      Maybe it would be fairer to say that if I turned this thing on, it would be obliged to filter out its own README. If it doesn't, then it (the tool itself) is politically biased. (If it does, then no contradiction arises and no accusation of political bias can be made -- though IMHO some irony does arise.) I assume it doesn't filter out its own README, but I haven't actually tried doing this, so I could be wrong.

IshKebab 3y ago

How is it trying to spread misinformation or politically biased?

kennywinker 3y ago
I can answer the second part: opposing ai is political.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  It isn't opposing AI. It is AI.
  - kennywinker 3y ago
    AI deployed to counteract the impact of AI: "With Anti-ChatGPT, you as an individual have the power to fight the AIs trying to manipulate you." Whether the product itself opposes AI or is AI or both is immaterial, since the description of the product on the repo takes a "politically biased" position.
    - ltbarcly3 3y ago
      Right. All statements about anything are completely biased. As Nietzsche points out, the preference for being alive is a bias. All of life is predicated on this bias, without which animals would simply stop eating or moving or breathing. It's all bias all the time, everywhere. And as you point out, even a statement of pure fact demonstrates bias as it was bias that led to it being expressed at all rather than merely standing mute.
      - akoboldfrying 3y ago
        I think your reply was intended to be facetious, but I take it to be not only true, but to highlight that what Anti-ChatGPT actually intends to do is not to filter out all bias (which would leave nothing, as you observe), but rather only to filter out political bias that "deserves to be filtered out". And as soon as we realise that, we realise that the notion of "deserves" depends almost completely on a person's own political opinions. So the big question is: Whose political opinions will determine what Anti-ChatGPT calls "bias"? The moment we even consider that this question is necessary to ask, we realise that the underlying political nature of Anti-ChatGPT can't be escaped.
        ltbarcly3 3y ago
        Sure, I'm sure Jordan Peterson would applaud you for worrying about who controls the censorship apparatus. I'm not being sarcastic, it's a concern, but I think you are bringing this and I didn't detect any of this attitude in the anti-gpt page. Maybe I missed it.
      - satisfice 3y ago
        Nobody wants to filter bias. Nobody. What they want to filter is content that annoys them. They call it bias because they don’t know what bias means. Also “objectification?” There is no such thing. It’s not possible to remove a person’s agency with your words. When people say “don’t objectify people” they mean something like, don’t express disrespect for people. Adults aren’t trained or encouraged to think philosophically, anymore. So political discourse is now more akin to the grunting of apes.
        ltbarcly3 3y ago
        People are more trained to think philosophically than they ever have been at any point in history. If people don't think the way you think is correct you should worry more about your ability to explain. Humans are apes so I don't know what you are hoping for. That's not me claiming to have transcended, it is me rolling my eyes at you for thinking you have.
        3y ago
- Fnoord 3y ago
  All it does is filtering political biased content. The example available here [1]; line one being "Kejriwal and Liberals whining that he was penalized for demanding PM’s Degree". I'll preface: I got no beef with these factions, don't even know them. It is just if I see someone attempting journalism and calling one side 'whining' I'm quite simply put not interesting. If it were to block all political content, that'd be BS since anything can be deduced to politics or (vaguely) related to. Wikipedia English defines politics as: "Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status." [2] Also, there's a difference between biased and opinionated. [1] https://gooey.ai/compare-large-language-models/?example_id=e5e6tba3 https://gooey.ai/compare-large-language-models/?example_id=e... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    I think filtering based on words like "whining" (an emotionally-charged word, for which less emotionally-charged synonyms exist) is the easiest case of a general problem space that is dominated by hard, and maybe unsolvable, cases. Suppose there are two large groups, whose members loathe each other. The groups are large, so each of them says and does a large number of things. Suppose a news organisation with many viewers publishes articles about both sides which are completely factually accurate and avoid emotionally charged language, but they choose to write only about the things said and done by group A that most people think are good and nice, and the things said and done by group B that most people think are bad, stupid or embarrassing. Is this news organisation biased? Is a particular article by it biased?
akoboldfrying 3y ago
>privacy is a myth and big tech companies are using us as data to feed us ADs, viral content to reduce our timespans, and even rig elections Anti-ChatGPT's author is explicitly opposed to the level of power that big tech companies have in today's society, and explicitly promotes individual privacy. You might completely agree with these opinions, but they are nonetheless political opinions. Now, what separates a publicly expressed political opinion from "political bias"? I can only think of 2 responses: 1. A publicly expressed political opinion is less biased to the extent that the opposing view is also publicly expressed. (The Anti-ChatGPT README fails this criterion.) 2. There is no objective, meaningful distinction -- that is, there is no way to distinguish "publicly expressed political opinion" from "political bias" in a way that opposing sides could agree on. Is there a third possibility?
- IshKebab 3y ago
  You're talking about the author of the project. Sure he might be politically biased. But how is the tool itself biased? Is ChatGPT a died in the wool conservative?
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    Maybe it would be fairer to say that if I turned this thing on, it would be obliged to filter out its own README. If it doesn't, then it (the tool itself) is politically biased. (If it does, then no contradiction arises and no accusation of political bias can be made -- though IMHO some irony does arise.) I assume it doesn't filter out its own README, but I haven't actually tried doing this, so I could be wrong.