3 ms·

AIs/LLMs are going to reflect the biases in their training data. That seems intuitive. And personally, I think when people see content they agree with, they th

AIs/LLMs are going to reflect the biases in their training data. That seems intuitive. And personally, I think when people see content they agree with, they think it's unbiased. And the converse is also true. So conservatives might think Fox News is "balanced" and liberals might think it's "far-right"

prox 1y ago
Yup it appears as neutral bias because (or when rather) it corresponds 1:1 with your belief system, which by default is skewed af. Unless you did a rigorous self inquiry and mapped your beliefs and thoroughly aware of them that’s gonna be nearly always true.
- econ 1y ago
  Nah, the later is an example of the former.
  - prox 1y ago
    I don’t agree if I understand your reply correctly, it’s possible to become aware of your bias. People are able to self-reflect and engage in self-enquiry. From engaging in philosophy to rigorous self examination of what things you hold true. Everything you hold true is your bias (I wonder if thats what you meant with your reply) And I wouldn’t be surprised if there are also tests out there.
    - econ 1y ago
      One can try to be more objective and far exceed others, specially in your area of expertise, but you won't grow all the way and outlandish ideas live on under topics rarely examined. If you make enough effort towards objectivity for long enough you continue to find crazy obvious stuff you actually bought into all along. To do a funny example: People use to attempt to make devices to communicate with the dead. What happened to that effort? Did we just one day decide it can't be done? What evidence do we have to support that conclusion? We can try argue it is unlikely to succeed. We have nothing to show that supports any kind of likelihood. Then it must be stuff we like to believe?
Forgeties79 1y ago
> And personally, I think when people see content they agree with, they think it's unbiased. And the converse is also true. One only has to see how angry conservatives/musk supporters get at Grok on a regular basis.
- gdulli 1y ago
  It's amazing to watch https://bsky.app/profile/curious-maga.bsky.social https://bsky.app/profile/curious-maga.bsky.social
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    Those are some really interesting questions lol Also: Wow I’m at -3 already on the previous comment. That really ruffled some feathers.
Y_Y 1y ago
[flagged]
throwaway290 1y ago
> And personally, I think when people see content they agree with, they think it's unbiased. And the converse is also true. > So conservatives might think Fox News is "balanced" and liberals might think it's "far-right" Article talks like when accidentally the vector for race aligns with emotion so it can classify a happy black personal as unhappy. Just because training dataset has lots of happy white people. It's not about subjective preference explain how "agreeing" is related
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  It was mostly a tangential thought. People could of course see a photo of a happy black person among 1000 photos of unhappy black people and say that person looks happy, and realize the LLM is wrong, because people's brains are pre-wired to perceive emotions from facial expressions. LLMs will pick up on any correlation in the training data and use that to make associations. But in general, excepting ridiculous examples like that, if an LLM says something that a person agrees with, I think people will be inclined to (A) believe it and (B) not see any bias.
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    Is it ridiculous? It's just one example. There's probably millions more that are not about race-related emotions
mc32 1y ago
Bias is different things though. If most people are cautious but the LLM is carefree, then that is a bias. Or if it recommends planting sorghum over wheat that is a different bias. In addition bias is not intrinsically bad. It might have a bias toward safety. That's a good thing. If it has a bias against committing crime, that is also good. Or a bias against gambling.
Theodores 1y ago
Your comment has made me wonder what fun could be had in deliberately educated an LLM badly, so that it is Fox News on steroids with added flat-earth conspiracy nonsense. For tech, only Stack Overflow answers modded negatively would 'help'. As for medicine, a Victorian encyclopedia, from the days before germs were discovered could 'help', with phrenology, ether and everything else now discredited. If the LLM replied as if it was Charles Dickens with no knowledge of the 20th century (or the 21st), that would be pretty much perfect.
- electroglyph 1y ago
  top men are already working on it, it's going to be called Grok 5
- teddyh 1y ago
  “We have purposely trained him wrong, as a joke.”
- thinkingemote 1y ago
  I love the idea! We could have a leaderboard of most-wrong LLMs Perhaps LORA could be used to do this for certain subjects like Javascript? I'm struggling coming up with more sources of lots of bad information for everything however. One issue is the volume maybe? Does it need lots of input about a wide range of stuff. Would feeding it bad JS also twist code outputs for C++ ? Would priming it with flat earth understandings of the world make outputs about botany and economics also align with that world view even if only no conspiracists had written on these subjects?
bigstrat2003 1y ago
> And personally, I think when people see content they agree with, they think it's unbiased. And the converse is also true. Yeah, confirmation bias is a hell of a thing. We're all prone to it, even if we try really hard to avoid it.
ChrisGreenHeur 1y ago
your very measuring stick (balanced, far-right) has bias built in to it
chmod775 1y ago
I have yet to meet a single regular joe, conservative or not, who will honestly make the blanket statement that Fox News is unbiased. Even googling I cannot find a single person claiming that. Not one YT comment. All I can find is liberal outlets/commentors claiming that conservatives believe Fox News is unbiased. There's probably some joes out there holding that belief, but they're clearly not common. The whole thing is just another roundabout way to imply that those who disagree with one's POV lack critical thinking skills.

prox 1y ago

Yup it appears as neutral bias because (or when rather) it corresponds 1:1 with your belief system, which by default is skewed af. Unless you did a rigorous self inquiry and mapped your beliefs and thoroughly aware of them that’s gonna be nearly always true.

econ 1y ago
Nah, the later is an example of the former.
- prox 1y ago
  I don’t agree if I understand your reply correctly, it’s possible to become aware of your bias. People are able to self-reflect and engage in self-enquiry. From engaging in philosophy to rigorous self examination of what things you hold true. Everything you hold true is your bias (I wonder if thats what you meant with your reply) And I wouldn’t be surprised if there are also tests out there.
  - econ 1y ago
    One can try to be more objective and far exceed others, specially in your area of expertise, but you won't grow all the way and outlandish ideas live on under topics rarely examined. If you make enough effort towards objectivity for long enough you continue to find crazy obvious stuff you actually bought into all along. To do a funny example: People use to attempt to make devices to communicate with the dead. What happened to that effort? Did we just one day decide it can't be done? What evidence do we have to support that conclusion? We can try argue it is unlikely to succeed. We have nothing to show that supports any kind of likelihood. Then it must be stuff we like to believe?

Forgeties79 1y ago

> And personally, I think when people see content they agree with, they think it's unbiased. And the converse is also true. One only has to see how angry conservatives/musk supporters get at Grok on a regular basis.

gdulli 1y ago
It's amazing to watch https://bsky.app/profile/curious-maga.bsky.social https://bsky.app/profile/curious-maga.bsky.social
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  Those are some really interesting questions lol Also: Wow I’m at -3 already on the previous comment. That really ruffled some feathers.

Y_Y 1y ago

[flagged]

throwaway290 1y ago

> And personally, I think when people see content they agree with, they think it's unbiased. And the converse is also true. > So conservatives might think Fox News is "balanced" and liberals might think it's "far-right" Article talks like when accidentally the vector for race aligns with emotion so it can classify a happy black personal as unhappy. Just because training dataset has lots of happy white people. It's not about subjective preference explain how "agreeing" is related

SoftTalker 1y ago
It was mostly a tangential thought. People could of course see a photo of a happy black person among 1000 photos of unhappy black people and say that person looks happy, and realize the LLM is wrong, because people's brains are pre-wired to perceive emotions from facial expressions. LLMs will pick up on any correlation in the training data and use that to make associations. But in general, excepting ridiculous examples like that, if an LLM says something that a person agrees with, I think people will be inclined to (A) believe it and (B) not see any bias.
- throwaway290 1y ago
  Is it ridiculous? It's just one example. There's probably millions more that are not about race-related emotions

mc32 1y ago

Bias is different things though. If most people are cautious but the LLM is carefree, then that is a bias. Or if it recommends planting sorghum over wheat that is a different bias. In addition bias is not intrinsically bad. It might have a bias toward safety. That's a good thing. If it has a bias against committing crime, that is also good. Or a bias against gambling.

Theodores 1y ago

Your comment has made me wonder what fun could be had in deliberately educated an LLM badly, so that it is Fox News on steroids with added flat-earth conspiracy nonsense. For tech, only Stack Overflow answers modded negatively would 'help'. As for medicine, a Victorian encyclopedia, from the days before germs were discovered could 'help', with phrenology, ether and everything else now discredited. If the LLM replied as if it was Charles Dickens with no knowledge of the 20th century (or the 21st), that would be pretty much perfect.

electroglyph 1y ago
top men are already working on it, it's going to be called Grok 5
teddyh 1y ago
“We have purposely trained him wrong, as a joke.”
thinkingemote 1y ago
I love the idea! We could have a leaderboard of most-wrong LLMs Perhaps LORA could be used to do this for certain subjects like Javascript? I'm struggling coming up with more sources of lots of bad information for everything however. One issue is the volume maybe? Does it need lots of input about a wide range of stuff. Would feeding it bad JS also twist code outputs for C++ ? Would priming it with flat earth understandings of the world make outputs about botany and economics also align with that world view even if only no conspiracists had written on these subjects?

bigstrat2003 1y ago

> And personally, I think when people see content they agree with, they think it's unbiased. And the converse is also true. Yeah, confirmation bias is a hell of a thing. We're all prone to it, even if we try really hard to avoid it.

ChrisGreenHeur 1y ago

your very measuring stick (balanced, far-right) has bias built in to it

chmod775 1y ago

I have yet to meet a single regular joe, conservative or not, who will honestly make the blanket statement that Fox News is unbiased. Even googling I cannot find a single person claiming that. Not one YT comment. All I can find is liberal outlets/commentors claiming that conservatives believe Fox News is unbiased. There's probably some joes out there holding that belief, but they're clearly not common. The whole thing is just another roundabout way to imply that those who disagree with one's POV lack critical thinking skills.