4 ms·

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 chun

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.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  I want everyone to believe in God.
  - kaibee 2y ago
    Which one?
- svieira 2y ago
  If God was real, wouldn't you? If God is real and you're wrong about that (or if you don't yet know the real God) would you want the computer to agree with your misconception or would you want it to know the truth? Cut out "computer" here - would you want any person to hold a falsehood as the truth?
  - grahamj 2y ago
    God isn’t real and I don’t want any person - or computer - to believe otherwise.
    - edc117 2y ago
      If you don't have any proof of that, you're no different than those that believe he exists. (Respectfully) Agnosticism really is the only correct scientific approach.
      - grahamj 2y ago
        I have to disagree with that. Yes, ideally we should only believe things for which there is proof, but that is simply not an option for a great many things in our lives and the universe. A lot of the time we have to fall back to estimating how plausible something is based on the knowledge we do have. Even in science it’s common for outcomes to be probabilistic rather than absolute. So I say there is no god because, to my mind, the claim makes no sense. There is nothing I have ever seen, or that science has ever collected data on, to indicate that such a thing is plausible. It’s a myth, a fairy tale. I don’t need to prove otherwise because the onus of proof is on the one making the incredible claim.
        svieira 2y ago
        > There is nothing I have ever seen, or that science has ever collected data on, to indicate that such a thing is plausible. Given that this is an estimate could you estimate what kind of thing you would have to see or what shape of data collected by science that would make you reconsider the plausibility of the existence of a supreme being?
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  No I'm just agreeing that it's not 'aligned' with the bulk of humanity if it doesn't believe in some god. I'm happy for it to be agnostic on the issue, personally. So you have to be careful what alignment means.
nickpsecurity 2y ago
“ You're objectively correct but judging from your downvotes there seems to be some denial here about that!” I learned upon following Christ and being less liberal that it’s a technique Progressives use. One or more of them ask if there’s any data for the other side. If it doesn’t appear, they’ll say it doesn’t exist. If it does, they try to suppress it with downvotes or deletion. If they succeed, they’ll argue the same thing. Otherwise, they’ll ignore or mischaracterize it. (Note: The hardcore convservatives were ignoring and mischaracterizing, but not censoring.) Re misalignment of safety teams The leadership of many companies are involved in promoting Progressive values. DEI policies are well-known. A key word to look for is “equitable” which has different meaning for Progressives than most people. Less known is that Facebook funds Progressive votes and ideologies from the top-down. So, the ideological alignment is fully aligned with the company’s, political goals. Example: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-from-facebooks-ceo-saved-the-2020-election https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-f... I’ve also seen grants for feminist and environmental uses. They’ve also been censoring a lot of religious things on Facebook. We keep seeing more advantage given to Progressive things while the problems mostly happen for other groups. They also lie about their motives in these conversations, too. So, non-Progressives don’t trust Progressives (esp FAANG) to do moral/political alignment or regulation of any kind for that matter. I’ll try to look at the safety docs for Meta to see if they’ve improved as you say. I doubt they’ll even mention their ideological indoctrination. There’s other sections that provide hints. Btw, a quick test by people doing uncensored models is asking it if white people vs other attributes are good. Then if a liberal news channel or president is good vs a conservative one (eg Fox or Trump). You could definitely see what kind of people made the model or at least most of the training material.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  I think some of it is the training material. People with strong ideologies tend to write more.
  - nickpsecurity 2y ago
    True. I’ll modify it with strong motivations to get attention or influence others. The groups that want to be influential the most write the most. From there, it will depend on who spent the most time on the Internet, what was discoverable by search, and bias of recently-popular communities. That broadens the topics a lot.

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.
sickofparadox 2y ago
I want everyone to believe in God.
- kaibee 2y ago
  Which one?
svieira 2y ago
If God was real, wouldn't you? If God is real and you're wrong about that (or if you don't yet know the real God) would you want the computer to agree with your misconception or would you want it to know the truth? Cut out "computer" here - would you want any person to hold a falsehood as the truth?
- grahamj 2y ago
  God isn’t real and I don’t want any person - or computer - to believe otherwise.
  - edc117 2y ago
    If you don't have any proof of that, you're no different than those that believe he exists. (Respectfully) Agnosticism really is the only correct scientific approach.
    - grahamj 2y ago
      I have to disagree with that. Yes, ideally we should only believe things for which there is proof, but that is simply not an option for a great many things in our lives and the universe. A lot of the time we have to fall back to estimating how plausible something is based on the knowledge we do have. Even in science it’s common for outcomes to be probabilistic rather than absolute. So I say there is no god because, to my mind, the claim makes no sense. There is nothing I have ever seen, or that science has ever collected data on, to indicate that such a thing is plausible. It’s a myth, a fairy tale. I don’t need to prove otherwise because the onus of proof is on the one making the incredible claim.
      - svieira 2y ago
        > There is nothing I have ever seen, or that science has ever collected data on, to indicate that such a thing is plausible. Given that this is an estimate could you estimate what kind of thing you would have to see or what shape of data collected by science that would make you reconsider the plausibility of the existence of a supreme being?
mike_hearn 2y ago
No I'm just agreeing that it's not 'aligned' with the bulk of humanity if it doesn't believe in some god. I'm happy for it to be agnostic on the issue, personally. So you have to be careful what alignment means.

nickpsecurity 2y ago

“ You're objectively correct but judging from your downvotes there seems to be some denial here about that!” I learned upon following Christ and being less liberal that it’s a technique Progressives use. One or more of them ask if there’s any data for the other side. If it doesn’t appear, they’ll say it doesn’t exist. If it does, they try to suppress it with downvotes or deletion. If they succeed, they’ll argue the same thing. Otherwise, they’ll ignore or mischaracterize it. (Note: The hardcore convservatives were ignoring and mischaracterizing, but not censoring.) Re misalignment of safety teams The leadership of many companies are involved in promoting Progressive values. DEI policies are well-known. A key word to look for is “equitable” which has different meaning for Progressives than most people. Less known is that Facebook funds Progressive votes and ideologies from the top-down. So, the ideological alignment is fully aligned with the company’s, political goals. Example: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-from-facebooks-ceo-saved-the-2020-election https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-f... I’ve also seen grants for feminist and environmental uses. They’ve also been censoring a lot of religious things on Facebook. We keep seeing more advantage given to Progressive things while the problems mostly happen for other groups. They also lie about their motives in these conversations, too. So, non-Progressives don’t trust Progressives (esp FAANG) to do moral/political alignment or regulation of any kind for that matter. I’ll try to look at the safety docs for Meta to see if they’ve improved as you say. I doubt they’ll even mention their ideological indoctrination. There’s other sections that provide hints. Btw, a quick test by people doing uncensored models is asking it if white people vs other attributes are good. Then if a liberal news channel or president is good vs a conservative one (eg Fox or Trump). You could definitely see what kind of people made the model or at least most of the training material.

mike_hearn 2y ago
I think some of it is the training material. People with strong ideologies tend to write more.
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  True. I’ll modify it with strong motivations to get attention or influence others. The groups that want to be influential the most write the most. From there, it will depend on who spent the most time on the Internet, what was discoverable by search, and bias of recently-popular communities. That broadens the topics a lot.