4 ms·

You want the computer to believe in God?

by 1986 2y ago

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?
        grahamj 2y ago
        I don't think that's really possible. The issue isn't so much that there isn't proof, it's that proof existing would be counter to everything we know about how the universe works. It wouldn't just mean "oops I'm wrong" it would mean that humanity's perception of reality would have to be fundamentally flawed. I'm not even opposed to believing that our perception is flawed - clearly we don't know everything and there is much about reality we can't perceive let alone understand. But this would be so far outside of what we do understand that I cannot simply assume that it's true - I would need to see it to believe it. There are virtually limitless ways such a being could make itself evident to humanity yet the only "evidence" anyone can come up with is either ancient stories or phenomena more plausibly explained by other causes. To me this completely tracks with the implausibility of the existence of god.
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.

You want the computer to believe in God?

by 1986 2y ago

You want the computer to believe in God?

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?
      - grahamj 2y ago
        I don't think that's really possible. The issue isn't so much that there isn't proof, it's that proof existing would be counter to everything we know about how the universe works. It wouldn't just mean "oops I'm wrong" it would mean that humanity's perception of reality would have to be fundamentally flawed. I'm not even opposed to believing that our perception is flawed - clearly we don't know everything and there is much about reality we can't perceive let alone understand. But this would be so far outside of what we do understand that I cannot simply assume that it's true - I would need to see it to believe it. There are virtually limitless ways such a being could make itself evident to humanity yet the only "evidence" anyone can come up with is either ancient stories or phenomena more plausibly explained by other causes. To me this completely tracks with the implausibility of the existence of god.

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.