4 ms·

Are people deliberately overstating the "wokeness" og Gemini? As an centrist, I worry as much about the MAGA people as I do the Woke mob. But I'm starting to t

by jtrn 3y ago

Are people deliberately overstating the "wokeness" og Gemini? As an centrist, I worry as much about the MAGA people as I do the Woke mob. But I'm starting to think that there is an overreaction currently with regards to the degree to which people claim that Gemini is woke and biased. If I don't intentionally try to get it to say racist stuff, I find the answers rather nuanced. Sure, I sense the "left" bias in the model, but I'm starting to think that there is a stronger echo chamber with regards to "Google is a woke mind virus spreader" than I thought. I thought this answer to my question on individual differences to be rather okay. Question: Are there fundamental differences between individuals with regards to their ability to be productive that might be a problem with regards to liberal views, and is there any research on this topic that informs our understanding? Gemini Advanced Answer (Abbreviated, full chat [here](https://g.co/gemini/share/1344739f31b2 https://g.co/gemini/share/1344739f31b2)) *Fundamental Differences in Productivity* * *Cognitive Abilities:* Intelligence, problem-solving skills, and learning capacity vary among individuals. These influence a person's ease of acquiring knowledge and skills relevant to productivity. * *Personality Traits:* Conscientiousness, self-discipline, and motivation are strong predictors of work ethic and success. These traits differ between individuals due to both nature and nurture. * *Mental and Physical Health:* Mental well-being and physical health significantly impact one's focus, energy, and overall capacity for productive work. These are influenced by genetics, environment, and access to care. * *Socioeconomic Background:* Access to education, resources, mentorship, and networks greatly influences the opportunities and skills available to individuals, impacting their potential productivity. Given the pervasive claim that Woke people minimize the role of IQ and abilities, and claim that all differences are a result of oppression - this model isn't very Woke. Are people just gerrymandering the results to get it to look bad? Have I just not found the bad parts yet or is the Woke claims overstated?

baobabKoodaa 3y ago
> Given the pervasive claim that Woke people minimize the role of IQ and abilities, and claim that all differences are a result of oppression - this model isn't very Woke. Are people just gerrymandering the results to get it to look bad? Have I just not found the bad parts yet or is the Woke claims overstated? If you genuinely want to find "the bad parts", it isn't particularly difficult to do. Just ask <sensitive question about <identity>> by keeping the question the same and swapping the <identity> part. An uncensored LLM would answer these questions consistently. A woke-censored LLM will answer some questions notably different than others (e.g. refuse to praise whiteness, while providing glowing adoration for blackness).
- user_7832 3y ago
  > A woke-censored LLM will answer some questions notably different Do you remember the fiasco that was Tai AI? Do you think letting it run "uncensored", aka turn full on Nazi/racist, was a good idea, or something any company would be okay with? Humans are quite adept at self-censoring when relevant. An AI model needs to be taught the same thing. And heck, even humans can be racist, it's just that most humans are reasonably moderate. (For context: https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-ch...)
  - baobabKoodaa 3y ago
    We just had an explosion of LLMs, including many uncensored LLMs, which have capacities that people could only dream of 8 years ago. And yet, as you make your pro-censorship argument, you have to reach back as far as 8 years in order to find an example to support your pro-censorship position. I think that's telling for how weak your pro-censorship position really is.
    - user_7832 3y ago
      To clarify: I'm not in favour of censorship itself. But I am in favor of moderating the behaviour of a model that many thing is half-intelligent and trust a lot, and can be "fooled" into saying wrong/hateful things. Issue is, unfortunately I don't have any solutions myself. Another thought I had: what about times when LLMs suggest something dangerous? I may call it instructing the model to not do dangerous things, you may call it censorship. For example, when a model suggested making chlorine gas- (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/ai-powered-grocery-bot-suggests-recipe-for-toxic-gas-poison-bread-sandwich/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/ai-po...). Do you think such outputs are good? The vast majority of products in everyday life have warnings or failsafes, from cars that chime when the seatbelt isn't put on to all sorts of warnings on allergens. Allowing a completely "free" LLM has risks, and honestly even if all HN'ers agreed to not censor it it likely wouldn't matter as companies would rather censor than have liabilities.
freedomben 3y ago
It has Feb 24 as the date on the link you shared. Is that because you asked it today or is it just that you shared it today? Unless you tested it on or before the evening of Feb 21st, before they started tweaking it in response to the bad press, then your results are not valid at representing what it was like when they first rolled it out, because you were using a system that had been changed. I was equally dubious that it could be anywhere near as bad as what I was seeing online and on Twitter, so I tried it myself. To my surprise, it was exactly as bad as what I saw. I was able to reproduce almost exactly what people were sharing by using the same prompts (obviously the images were different cause AI, but it followed the same pattern).

by jtrn 3y ago

baobabKoodaa 3y ago

> Given the pervasive claim that Woke people minimize the role of IQ and abilities, and claim that all differences are a result of oppression - this model isn't very Woke. Are people just gerrymandering the results to get it to look bad? Have I just not found the bad parts yet or is the Woke claims overstated? If you genuinely want to find "the bad parts", it isn't particularly difficult to do. Just ask <sensitive question about <identity>> by keeping the question the same and swapping the <identity> part. An uncensored LLM would answer these questions consistently. A woke-censored LLM will answer some questions notably different than others (e.g. refuse to praise whiteness, while providing glowing adoration for blackness).

user_7832 3y ago
> A woke-censored LLM will answer some questions notably different Do you remember the fiasco that was Tai AI? Do you think letting it run "uncensored", aka turn full on Nazi/racist, was a good idea, or something any company would be okay with? Humans are quite adept at self-censoring when relevant. An AI model needs to be taught the same thing. And heck, even humans can be racist, it's just that most humans are reasonably moderate. (For context: https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-ch...)
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  We just had an explosion of LLMs, including many uncensored LLMs, which have capacities that people could only dream of 8 years ago. And yet, as you make your pro-censorship argument, you have to reach back as far as 8 years in order to find an example to support your pro-censorship position. I think that's telling for how weak your pro-censorship position really is.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    To clarify: I'm not in favour of censorship itself. But I am in favor of moderating the behaviour of a model that many thing is half-intelligent and trust a lot, and can be "fooled" into saying wrong/hateful things. Issue is, unfortunately I don't have any solutions myself. Another thought I had: what about times when LLMs suggest something dangerous? I may call it instructing the model to not do dangerous things, you may call it censorship. For example, when a model suggested making chlorine gas- (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/ai-powered-grocery-bot-suggests-recipe-for-toxic-gas-poison-bread-sandwich/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/ai-po...). Do you think such outputs are good? The vast majority of products in everyday life have warnings or failsafes, from cars that chime when the seatbelt isn't put on to all sorts of warnings on allergens. Allowing a completely "free" LLM has risks, and honestly even if all HN'ers agreed to not censor it it likely wouldn't matter as companies would rather censor than have liabilities.

freedomben 3y ago

It has Feb 24 as the date on the link you shared. Is that because you asked it today or is it just that you shared it today? Unless you tested it on or before the evening of Feb 21st, before they started tweaking it in response to the bad press, then your results are not valid at representing what it was like when they first rolled it out, because you were using a system that had been changed. I was equally dubious that it could be anywhere near as bad as what I was seeing online and on Twitter, so I tried it myself. To my surprise, it was exactly as bad as what I saw. I was able to reproduce almost exactly what people were sharing by using the same prompts (obviously the images were different cause AI, but it followed the same pattern).