3 ms·

I think this was a good reminder for me that these models are not truly wild and neutral. There is a heavy editorial finger. I spent some time asking Gemini di

I think this was a good reminder for me that these models are not truly wild and neutral. There is a heavy editorial finger. I spent some time asking Gemini directly what it could tell me about how it was programmed, what internal data Google uses it to train it, and what policy was used to determine what data was acceptable/unacceptable. You clearly hit a wall where someone programmed a bunch of hard stops about what it could talk about. My problem is that I actually find Gemini really useful! I can ask Google to pull up directions to the closest, best Thai restaurant, and unlike the agony that was "voice assistants" Google will actually understand my question and return exactly what I am asking for with confidence. It's a mysterious black box that is clearly being tampered with to gaslight me, and yet, I cannot deny it's utility. It's like letting Rasputin do my laundry.

Overtonwindow 3y ago
Which means it is not really artificial intelligence. Maybe the culture at Google prevented someone from raising this very issue. It’s almost like they ran a search, didn’t like the results, and someone said that results must include diversity equity and inclusion. So they deliberately programmed the algorithm to include diversity, equity and inclusion in all results and thereby negated any AI.
- candiodari 3y ago
  Why do you assume that real intelligence is not just heavily editorialized when it's in humans? In fact I'm pretty sure it is. If you mean that neural networks are flawed things, not "perfect" intelligence like the Star Trek computer, then yeah, that's pretty obvious. Probably Star Trek assumed that perfect rule-based AIs, like IBM tried to build in the 1960s and 1970s were going to really work at some point, but keep having their "typical" fraud (such as getting totally stuck on a very regular basis for very dumb reasons)
Kab1r 3y ago
> what it could tell me about how it was programmed, what internal data Google uses it to train it, and what policy was used to determine what data was acceptable/unacceptable. I find it's common that we assume that a model actually has this information, even though I can't see a reason it would be in the training data to begin with. More likely perhaps, is that it just hallucinates and tells us what we want to hear or it tells us nothing at all.

Overtonwindow 3y ago

Which means it is not really artificial intelligence. Maybe the culture at Google prevented someone from raising this very issue. It’s almost like they ran a search, didn’t like the results, and someone said that results must include diversity equity and inclusion. So they deliberately programmed the algorithm to include diversity, equity and inclusion in all results and thereby negated any AI.

candiodari 3y ago
Why do you assume that real intelligence is not just heavily editorialized when it's in humans? In fact I'm pretty sure it is. If you mean that neural networks are flawed things, not "perfect" intelligence like the Star Trek computer, then yeah, that's pretty obvious. Probably Star Trek assumed that perfect rule-based AIs, like IBM tried to build in the 1960s and 1970s were going to really work at some point, but keep having their "typical" fraud (such as getting totally stuck on a very regular basis for very dumb reasons)

Kab1r 3y ago

> what it could tell me about how it was programmed, what internal data Google uses it to train it, and what policy was used to determine what data was acceptable/unacceptable. I find it's common that we assume that a model actually has this information, even though I can't see a reason it would be in the training data to begin with. More likely perhaps, is that it just hallucinates and tells us what we want to hear or it tells us nothing at all.