4 ms·

If the results are as silly as the article suggests, I wonder if it could be deliberate sabotage. They know they can’t raise the issue normally, so go the other

by rdtsc 3y ago

If the results are as silly as the article suggests, I wonder if it could be deliberate sabotage. They know they can’t raise the issue normally, so go the other way, turn the dial to 11. Now it’s just ridiculous and is all over the media. The CEO himself is asking the dials to be turned back to 3.

tonymet 3y ago
it's about the only corrective measure that would have worked.
google234123 3y ago
Why are you assuming that when the extreme leftist are literally in charge - have entire departments- have made it so that literally all managers must pretend they also believe in the same things. The models are working as intended
username332211 3y ago
When you are required to listen and obey and not to think or question the difference between loyal obedience and sabotage becomes entirely theoretical.
- candiodari 3y ago
  And yet this is exactly what management demands. I guess it's one aspect of the self-sabotage.
pixxel 3y ago
> dials to be turned back to 3 Let’s not kid ourselves, it’ll be dialled back to 9. This nonsense is evident in search and image search, and has been for years.
supriyo-biswas 3y ago
It’s unlikely to be sabotage though. What may have happened is that the teams working on RLHF may have only trained it on a dataset containing the strictest interpretation of liberal values without also training it on other data that grounds it in reality. As a result, the model tried to inject the liberal interpretation of values where it doesn’t make sense, such as Black Nazis, and so on.
- Arnt 3y ago
  It's difficult though. A lot of societies up through the ages depicted themselves unrealistically, and our depiction of past societies can be rather questionable too. Cast a glance at https://www.moviestillsdb.com/movies/ben-hur-i52618 https://www.moviestillsdb.com/movies/ben-hur-i52618 if you want. Those pictures of nazis were clearly wrong, but describing something as wrong is easier than saying what's right. Should an AI match a society's prejudiced descriptions of itself (making the nazis blond), our later images, often also prejudiced, or the current best (yet fuzzy) historical notions of what reality was like?
  - candiodari 3y ago
    > describing something as wrong is easier than saying what's right This 1000x. This problem you also see with education of children. You have 2 problems: 1) there's a VERY large number of possible depictions. Let's say 10 million. Of those, a VERY small number are correct/acceptable. Let's say 10. Then it's easy to see. A correct example has 1/10 = "10%" of all information so to speak. If 100% is what you need to be guaranteed a correct classification of all possible depictions. Yet a negative example has 1/10,000,000= "0.000001%" of the information you need to classify all examples correctly. If you attempt to create correct behavior by giving wrong examples ... it'll be a long day. A positive example, telling an AI (or a child/student) what to DO has ~10000 times more information than telling them what NOT to do, in this example. In practice, you'll find the difference is even more extreme. 2) BUT there is a problem, that's also always brought up with wikipedia. Giving positive examples requires that there are examples that everyone agrees with. And we all know there are rather serious problems with that. A positive example HAS to be in the intersection of what all groups find acceptable. And ... well easy examples are always wars: Who is right? Who started the war? Is it justified? Applied to Russia, Ukraine, Israel, India, Sudan, ... but in practice a lot of issues, some not at all that controversial (which word is correct "New York" english? Bupkis or bupkez?)
  - Arnt 3y ago
    Replying to myself to say it better. What should Gemini have done, what would be right? Should it match the historical record, which the Nazis twisted by choosing to photograph mostly tall blond soldiers that looked a bit Danish, or should it match fact, which then would look different from the historical record, and is difficult to establish accurately anyway? Similar questions apply for other societies, both current and ancient. Current e.g. Russia, where the census asks people to select ethnicity, but any choice except "Russian" might as well be labelled "please discriminate against me". Whatever an AI does is going to be wrong, and calling anything right is extremely difficult. Ancient examples include India and Egypt, which both had long-lived dynasties that considered themselves somehow foreign to that land and were very selective about how their represented their realms. It's really easy to find a horrible example and call it horrible, but it's low-effort thinking. Describing something that's right is so much harder and so much more valuable.

by rdtsc 3y ago

tonymet 3y ago

it's about the only corrective measure that would have worked.

google234123 3y ago

Why are you assuming that when the extreme leftist are literally in charge - have entire departments- have made it so that literally all managers must pretend they also believe in the same things. The models are working as intended

username332211 3y ago

When you are required to listen and obey and not to think or question the difference between loyal obedience and sabotage becomes entirely theoretical.

candiodari 3y ago
And yet this is exactly what management demands. I guess it's one aspect of the self-sabotage.

pixxel 3y ago

> dials to be turned back to 3 Let’s not kid ourselves, it’ll be dialled back to 9. This nonsense is evident in search and image search, and has been for years.

supriyo-biswas 3y ago

It’s unlikely to be sabotage though. What may have happened is that the teams working on RLHF may have only trained it on a dataset containing the strictest interpretation of liberal values without also training it on other data that grounds it in reality. As a result, the model tried to inject the liberal interpretation of values where it doesn’t make sense, such as Black Nazis, and so on.

Arnt 3y ago
It's difficult though. A lot of societies up through the ages depicted themselves unrealistically, and our depiction of past societies can be rather questionable too. Cast a glance at https://www.moviestillsdb.com/movies/ben-hur-i52618 https://www.moviestillsdb.com/movies/ben-hur-i52618 if you want. Those pictures of nazis were clearly wrong, but describing something as wrong is easier than saying what's right. Should an AI match a society's prejudiced descriptions of itself (making the nazis blond), our later images, often also prejudiced, or the current best (yet fuzzy) historical notions of what reality was like?
- candiodari 3y ago
  > describing something as wrong is easier than saying what's right This 1000x. This problem you also see with education of children. You have 2 problems: 1) there's a VERY large number of possible depictions. Let's say 10 million. Of those, a VERY small number are correct/acceptable. Let's say 10. Then it's easy to see. A correct example has 1/10 = "10%" of all information so to speak. If 100% is what you need to be guaranteed a correct classification of all possible depictions. Yet a negative example has 1/10,000,000= "0.000001%" of the information you need to classify all examples correctly. If you attempt to create correct behavior by giving wrong examples ... it'll be a long day. A positive example, telling an AI (or a child/student) what to DO has ~10000 times more information than telling them what NOT to do, in this example. In practice, you'll find the difference is even more extreme. 2) BUT there is a problem, that's also always brought up with wikipedia. Giving positive examples requires that there are examples that everyone agrees with. And we all know there are rather serious problems with that. A positive example HAS to be in the intersection of what all groups find acceptable. And ... well easy examples are always wars: Who is right? Who started the war? Is it justified? Applied to Russia, Ukraine, Israel, India, Sudan, ... but in practice a lot of issues, some not at all that controversial (which word is correct "New York" english? Bupkis or bupkez?)
- Arnt 3y ago
  Replying to myself to say it better. What should Gemini have done, what would be right? Should it match the historical record, which the Nazis twisted by choosing to photograph mostly tall blond soldiers that looked a bit Danish, or should it match fact, which then would look different from the historical record, and is difficult to establish accurately anyway? Similar questions apply for other societies, both current and ancient. Current e.g. Russia, where the census asks people to select ethnicity, but any choice except "Russian" might as well be labelled "please discriminate against me". Whatever an AI does is going to be wrong, and calling anything right is extremely difficult. Ancient examples include India and Egypt, which both had long-lived dynasties that considered themselves somehow foreign to that land and were very selective about how their represented their realms. It's really easy to find a horrible example and call it horrible, but it's low-effort thinking. Describing something that's right is so much harder and so much more valuable.