7 ms·

Surely the two are synonyms? Unless you think there is such a thing as an objectively neutral position?

ImHereToVote 2y ago
My position is clearly the rational neutral position. Duh.
ryanjshaw 2y ago
Isn't that the point? "Debias" implies there IS an objectively neutral position and that that AI safety can take us there.
- andybak 2y ago
  I'm simply saying we are being asked to choose the bias we prefer. However one choice might be "more biased" (despite this concept itself throwing up more questions than it answers).
knallfrosch 2y ago
It's in the same bucket as "Affirmative Action" and "positive discrimination." Euphemisms to express that one likes this particular discrimination. To better describe the action, drop your own point of view and just say "bias" instead of "debias."
mdp2021 2y ago
> Unless you think there is such a thing as an objectively neutral position I do. Why, you don't? There are as much as possible objective assessments of complex things. Then, there are possible sets of assumption that can be applied to those objective assessments. All of those can be put on the analytic table.
- andybak 2y ago
  This is an extremely broad question so I'll limit my reply to the current context. What would an "objective neutral AI model" look like? The training data itself is just a snapshot of the internet. Is this "neutral"? It depends on your goals but any AI trained on this dataset is skewed towards a few clusters. In some cases you get something that merely approximates a Reddit or 4chan simulator. If that's what you want - then great but you can see why some people would want to "debias" that outcome! You might argue the "world as it truly exists" is the correct target. But bear in mind we are talking about human culture - not physics and chemistry - you're going to struggle to get both consensus and any sane methodology for getting that into an AI.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    You are mixing up, terminologically, LLMs and AI. But LLMs - of which you are talking about in the post - are a special beast. A reasoner can strive for "objective neutrality" with good results. An LLM is not a reasoner - or I am missing (ugly time constraints) the details of the compression activity during training that acts as pseudo-reasoning (operating at least some consistency decisions) -, and while an interest in not making it insulting or crass can be immediately understandable, speaking of "objective neutrality" does not really match the context of LLMs. LLMs (to the best of my information) "pick from what they have heard". An entity capable of "objective neutrality" does not - it "evaluates".
    - andybak 2y ago
      OK. Apologies for imprecision. I was replying in a rush. > A reasoner can strive for "objective neutrality" with good results. By "reasoner" do you largely mean "person"? If I have issues with your statement but they are probably a slight distraction to the point at hand. > speaking of "objective neutrality" does not really match the context of LLMs. Agreed. They produce output based on their training data. But the use and evaluation of LLM output by a person is what we're discussing here. And that's where (flawed) concepts like objectivity and neutrality enter the discussion.
      - mdp2021 2y ago
        You could look at it like this: if some idea is more objective than some other, and some idea is more neutral than some other, then objectivity and neutrality exist.
        andybak 2y ago
        Yes and no. Something can exist as a fact of the universe but still be unknowable. i.e. some hypothetical oracle could measure the quantum states of all human brains and ascertain what true objectivity looks like. Regular mortals can have any certainty about this dbut espite the logical neccessity that this fact "exists" in some sense. I think we're essentially also talking about the Overton Window to some degree. But that means you need to be OK with the thought that a sudden rise in extremism on one side of the political spectrum can alter the what you personally have to regard as "neutral and objective".
hamstergene 2y ago
Saying biasing implies infinite possibilities to which the data can be made biased towards. It instantly raises the question why bias towards this and not something else. It almost sounds like a bad thing. Saying debiasing implies there is a correct result which needs to be achieved by removing bias. It raises no questions, we want correct, we don’t want incorrect. Doing a good thing implied. Don’t misinterpret me, I don’t think public models should spew commonly harmful content out of the box. Just explaining the PR trick, which is what the word “de”biasing de-facto is in this context.

My position is clearly the rational neutral position. Duh.

Isn't that the point? "Debias" implies there IS an objectively neutral position and that that AI safety can take us there.

andybak 2y ago
I'm simply saying we are being asked to choose the bias we prefer. However one choice might be "more biased" (despite this concept itself throwing up more questions than it answers).

knallfrosch 2y ago

It's in the same bucket as "Affirmative Action" and "positive discrimination." Euphemisms to express that one likes this particular discrimination. To better describe the action, drop your own point of view and just say "bias" instead of "debias."

mdp2021 2y ago

> Unless you think there is such a thing as an objectively neutral position I do. Why, you don't? There are as much as possible objective assessments of complex things. Then, there are possible sets of assumption that can be applied to those objective assessments. All of those can be put on the analytic table.

andybak 2y ago
This is an extremely broad question so I'll limit my reply to the current context. What would an "objective neutral AI model" look like? The training data itself is just a snapshot of the internet. Is this "neutral"? It depends on your goals but any AI trained on this dataset is skewed towards a few clusters. In some cases you get something that merely approximates a Reddit or 4chan simulator. If that's what you want - then great but you can see why some people would want to "debias" that outcome! You might argue the "world as it truly exists" is the correct target. But bear in mind we are talking about human culture - not physics and chemistry - you're going to struggle to get both consensus and any sane methodology for getting that into an AI.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  You are mixing up, terminologically, LLMs and AI. But LLMs - of which you are talking about in the post - are a special beast. A reasoner can strive for "objective neutrality" with good results. An LLM is not a reasoner - or I am missing (ugly time constraints) the details of the compression activity during training that acts as pseudo-reasoning (operating at least some consistency decisions) -, and while an interest in not making it insulting or crass can be immediately understandable, speaking of "objective neutrality" does not really match the context of LLMs. LLMs (to the best of my information) "pick from what they have heard". An entity capable of "objective neutrality" does not - it "evaluates".
  - andybak 2y ago
    OK. Apologies for imprecision. I was replying in a rush. > A reasoner can strive for "objective neutrality" with good results. By "reasoner" do you largely mean "person"? If I have issues with your statement but they are probably a slight distraction to the point at hand. > speaking of "objective neutrality" does not really match the context of LLMs. Agreed. They produce output based on their training data. But the use and evaluation of LLM output by a person is what we're discussing here. And that's where (flawed) concepts like objectivity and neutrality enter the discussion.
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      You could look at it like this: if some idea is more objective than some other, and some idea is more neutral than some other, then objectivity and neutrality exist.
      - andybak 2y ago
        Yes and no. Something can exist as a fact of the universe but still be unknowable. i.e. some hypothetical oracle could measure the quantum states of all human brains and ascertain what true objectivity looks like. Regular mortals can have any certainty about this dbut espite the logical neccessity that this fact "exists" in some sense. I think we're essentially also talking about the Overton Window to some degree. But that means you need to be OK with the thought that a sudden rise in extremism on one side of the political spectrum can alter the what you personally have to regard as "neutral and objective".

hamstergene 2y ago

Saying biasing implies infinite possibilities to which the data can be made biased towards. It instantly raises the question why bias towards this and not something else. It almost sounds like a bad thing. Saying debiasing implies there is a correct result which needs to be achieved by removing bias. It raises no questions, we want correct, we don’t want incorrect. Doing a good thing implied. Don’t misinterpret me, I don’t think public models should spew commonly harmful content out of the box. Just explaining the PR trick, which is what the word “de”biasing de-facto is in this context.