3 ms·
if you look for problems, you'll find them. stripping something down to the objective parts isn't that hard for an llm as it's all about language. Sure they ca
by t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y ago
if you look for problems, you'll find them.
stripping something down to the objective parts isn't that hard for an llm as it's all about language. Sure they can and do have biases, although in this case it's a relative matter, and undoubtably the guardian is well known as left wing (in case somehow it isn't obvious just from looking at this article). So I'd say it's more steps forward than backwards.
It's not either or. Removing subjective fluff from such a language is a function of thinking for oneself.
using an llm to remove bias doesn't mean you need to then say "ok and now it's 100% objective".
I recommend chomsky on the subject, who for instance purposely speaks in monotone so as not to infuse emotion into what he's saying.
enjoy thinking what somebody else decided for you.
- mangamadaiyan 1y agoI think you just proved my point - but hey, to each their own. Good luck, again!
- t1E9mE7JTRjf 1y agoI still don't know what your point is. don't use llms to remove bias as they also have bias? is it just nihilism for the sake of nihilism? If so I can kind of get that, but then it leads to nowhere right? if something doesn't work perfectly I'd still use it if it's better than a less good alternative. I see it as a matter of relativism.
- mangamadaiyan 11mo agoYour claim is that LLMs are better at "x" than the alternatives, for some value of x. My point is that your claim is unsubstantiated.