3 ms·

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 t

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.
- kennywinker 3y ago
  > Also “objectification?” There is no such thing. It’s not possible to remove a person’s agency with your words. Objectification isn’t the act of removing a person’s agency, it’s treating a person the way would treat an object. So it is absolutely possible to do that with words.
kennywinker 3y ago
“AIs trying to manipulate you” isn’t a statement of fact, it’s an opinion about facts. AI exists, and content is created with it. Another opinion on the same facts would be “ai vying for your attention”. So this is political in both the sense that everything is political, but also in the much more concrete sense that it is political.

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.
kennywinker 3y ago
> Also “objectification?” There is no such thing. It’s not possible to remove a person’s agency with your words. Objectification isn’t the act of removing a person’s agency, it’s treating a person the way would treat an object. So it is absolutely possible to do that with words.

kennywinker 3y ago

“AIs trying to manipulate you” isn’t a statement of fact, it’s an opinion about facts. AI exists, and content is created with it. Another opinion on the same facts would be “ai vying for your attention”. So this is political in both the sense that everything is political, but also in the much more concrete sense that it is political.