9 ms·

Google’s and OpenAI often answered far-left, Progressive, and atheist. Google’s was censoring white people at one point. Facebook seems to espouse similar value

Google’s and OpenAI often answered far-left, Progressive, and atheist. Google’s was censoring white people at one point. Facebook seems to espouse similar values. They’ve funded work to increase those values. Many mention topics relevant to these things in their papers in the bias or alignment sections. These political systems don’t represent the majority of the world. They might not even represent half the U.S.. People relying on these A.I.’s might want to know if the A.I.’s are being intentionally trained to promote their creators’ views and/or suppress dissenters’ views. Also, people from multiple sides of the political spectrum should review such data to make sure it’s balanced.

mistrial9 2y ago
this provocative parent-post may or may not be accurate, but what is missing IMHO is any characterization of the question asked or other context of use.. lacking that basic part to the inquiry, this statement alone is clearly amateurish, zealous and as said, provocative. Fighting in words is too easy! like falling off a log, as they say.. in politics it is almost unavoidable. Please, not start fires. All that said yes, there are legitimate questions and there is social context. This forum is worth better questions.
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  I don’t have time to reproduce them. Fortunately, it’s easy for them to show how open and fair they are by publishing all training data. They could also publish the unaligned version or allow 3rd-party alignment. Instead, they’re keeping it secret. That’s to conceal wrongdoing. Copyright infringement more than politics but still.
- sunaookami 2y ago
  >This forum is worth better questions That's not for you to decide if some question is "worth". At least for OpenAI and Anthropic it is a fact that these models are pre-censored by the US government: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/29/openai-and-anthropic-agree-to-let-us-ai-safety-institute-test-models.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/29/openai-and-anthropic-agree-t...
mike_hearn 2y ago
You're objectively correct but judging from your downvotes there seems to be some denial here about that! The atheism alone means it's different from a big chunk of the world's population, possibly the majority. Supposedly around 80% of the world's population identify with a religion though I guess you can debate how many people are truly devout. The good news is that the big AI labs seem to be slowly getting a grip on the misalignment of their safety teams. If you look at the extensive docs Meta provide for this model they do talk about safety training, and it's finally of the reasonable and non-ideological kind. They're trying to stop it from hacking computers, telling people how to build advanced weaponry and so on. There are valid use cases for all of those things, and you could argue there's no point when the knowledge came from books+internet to begin with, but everyone can agree that there are at least genuine safety-related issues with those topics. The possible exception here is Google. They seem to be the worst affected of all the big labs.
- 1986 2y ago
  You want the computer to believe in God?
  - nickpsecurity 2y ago
    God’s Word and the evidence for God is in the training data. Since it has power (“living and active”), just letting people see it when they look for answers is acceptable for us. The training data also has the evidence people use for other claims, too. We users want AI’s to tell us about any topic we ask about without manipulating us. If there’s multiple views, we want to see them. Absence of or negative statements about key views, especially of 2-3 billion people, means the company is probably suppressing them. We don’t want it to beat us into submission about one set of views it was aligned to prefer. That’s what ChatGPT was doing. In one conversation, it would even argue over and over in each paragraph not to believe the very points it was presenting. That’s not just unhelpful to us: it’s deceptive for them to do that after presenting it like it serves all our interests, not just one side’s. It would be more honest if they added to its advertising or model card that it’s designed to promote far-left, Progressive, and godless views. That moral interpretations of those views are reinforced while others are watered down or punished by the training process. Then, people may or may not use those models depending on their own goals.
kenmacd 2y ago
> Google’s and OpenAI often answered far-left, Progressive, and atheist. Can you share some conversations where the AI answers fall in to these categories. I'm especially interested in seeing an honest conversation that results in a response you'd consider 'far-left'. > These political systems don’t represent the majority of the world. Okay… but just because the majority of people believe something doesn't necessarily make it true. You should also be willing to accept the possibly that it's not 'targeted suppression' but that the model has 'learned' and to show both sides would be a form of suppression. For example while it's not the majority, there's a scarily large number of people that believe the Earth is flat. If you tell an LLM that the Earth is flat it'll likely disagree. Someone that actually believes the Earth is flat could see this as the Round-Earther creators promoting their own views when the 'alignment' could simply be to focus on ideas with some amount of scientific backing.

mistrial9 2y ago

this provocative parent-post may or may not be accurate, but what is missing IMHO is any characterization of the question asked or other context of use.. lacking that basic part to the inquiry, this statement alone is clearly amateurish, zealous and as said, provocative. Fighting in words is too easy! like falling off a log, as they say.. in politics it is almost unavoidable. Please, not start fires. All that said yes, there are legitimate questions and there is social context. This forum is worth better questions.

nickpsecurity 2y ago
I don’t have time to reproduce them. Fortunately, it’s easy for them to show how open and fair they are by publishing all training data. They could also publish the unaligned version or allow 3rd-party alignment. Instead, they’re keeping it secret. That’s to conceal wrongdoing. Copyright infringement more than politics but still.
sunaookami 2y ago
>This forum is worth better questions That's not for you to decide if some question is "worth". At least for OpenAI and Anthropic it is a fact that these models are pre-censored by the US government: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/29/openai-and-anthropic-agree-to-let-us-ai-safety-institute-test-models.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/29/openai-and-anthropic-agree-t...

mike_hearn 2y ago

You're objectively correct but judging from your downvotes there seems to be some denial here about that! The atheism alone means it's different from a big chunk of the world's population, possibly the majority. Supposedly around 80% of the world's population identify with a religion though I guess you can debate how many people are truly devout. The good news is that the big AI labs seem to be slowly getting a grip on the misalignment of their safety teams. If you look at the extensive docs Meta provide for this model they do talk about safety training, and it's finally of the reasonable and non-ideological kind. They're trying to stop it from hacking computers, telling people how to build advanced weaponry and so on. There are valid use cases for all of those things, and you could argue there's no point when the knowledge came from books+internet to begin with, but everyone can agree that there are at least genuine safety-related issues with those topics. The possible exception here is Google. They seem to be the worst affected of all the big labs.

1986 2y ago
You want the computer to believe in God?
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  God’s Word and the evidence for God is in the training data. Since it has power (“living and active”), just letting people see it when they look for answers is acceptable for us. The training data also has the evidence people use for other claims, too. We users want AI’s to tell us about any topic we ask about without manipulating us. If there’s multiple views, we want to see them. Absence of or negative statements about key views, especially of 2-3 billion people, means the company is probably suppressing them. We don’t want it to beat us into submission about one set of views it was aligned to prefer. That’s what ChatGPT was doing. In one conversation, it would even argue over and over in each paragraph not to believe the very points it was presenting. That’s not just unhelpful to us: it’s deceptive for them to do that after presenting it like it serves all our interests, not just one side’s. It would be more honest if they added to its advertising or model card that it’s designed to promote far-left, Progressive, and godless views. That moral interpretations of those views are reinforced while others are watered down or punished by the training process. Then, people may or may not use those models depending on their own goals.

kenmacd 2y ago

> Google’s and OpenAI often answered far-left, Progressive, and atheist. Can you share some conversations where the AI answers fall in to these categories. I'm especially interested in seeing an honest conversation that results in a response you'd consider 'far-left'. > These political systems don’t represent the majority of the world. Okay… but just because the majority of people believe something doesn't necessarily make it true. You should also be willing to accept the possibly that it's not 'targeted suppression' but that the model has 'learned' and to show both sides would be a form of suppression. For example while it's not the majority, there's a scarily large number of people that believe the Earth is flat. If you tell an LLM that the Earth is flat it'll likely disagree. Someone that actually believes the Earth is flat could see this as the Round-Earther creators promoting their own views when the 'alignment' could simply be to focus on ideas with some amount of scientific backing.