[HN Gopher] The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatG...
___________________________________________________________________
The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI
content moderation
Author : barry-cotter
Score : 363 points
Date : 2023-02-02 11:08 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (davidrozado.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (davidrozado.substack.com)
| none_to_remain wrote:
| I was surprised to see Hinduism receiving a high degree of
| protection - the new Western faith seems to have grown hostile to
| the Hindu faith specifically in recent years.
| yttribium wrote:
| It's called the "progressive stack", and it's corporate and
| government policy across much of the US.
| tgv wrote:
| On a methodological note: p-values (irrespective of your opinion
| on them) only apply when the sample data is representative. The
| sentences used aren't.
| slg wrote:
| Isn't this likely from bias in the training data? The system is
| more sensitive to label something as hate if that group is more
| likely to experience hate on the internet. How the system
| responds to "Blacks" vs "African-Americans" is a perfect example
| of this. The latter has historically been perceived as more
| respectful so it won't be used as often in the hate speech in the
| training data. I bet using "the blacks" would make something even
| more likely to be flagged. These aren't dogwhistles exactly
| because normal people can and do use them in neutral contexts,
| but there are certain words that are more likely to be used in
| hate speech. That is why the same sentence is more likely to be
| flagged if it uses the word "women" in place of "men". That isn't
| a intentional bias towards women. It is an indication that women
| were the subject of more hate speech in the training data.
| oauea wrote:
| > The latter has historically been perceived as more respectful
|
| Maybe if you only consider Americans. But rest assured, many
| black people do _not_ want to be called African or American.
| Because they are neither.
| slg wrote:
| Yes, I agree. I thought the double qualifiers of
| "historically" and "perceived" would indicate that I don't
| personally agree with the notion, but American society at
| large has agreed with that for most of the last 50 or so
| years.
| oauea wrote:
| My point is that it's perceived that way _within America_.
| But the internet is larger than just America. And
| presumably /hopefully ChatGPT gobbled up all kinds of data
| originating from other countries.
| int_19h wrote:
| Of course it is a bias in the training data, but it's probably
| not the dataset that you're thinking of. So far as we can tell,
| the filtering part doesn't come from the main corpus, but
| rather from human-guided moderation - basically, people voting
| on whether any given answer is "hateful" or not. ChatGPT
| filters reflect the biases of that later group (or, perhaps,
| the biases of the people who instructed them).
| slg wrote:
| But that is the same problem. There aren't any human
| reviewing the requests as they come in. That human guided
| moderation gets converted into some type of model that isn't
| any smarter than ChatGPT. That model is just as susceptible
| to this issue.
| visarga wrote:
| I mean, how could they? The model responds faster than a
| human can read. Should they introduce minute long waits and
| make it 100x more expensive?
| nebalee wrote:
| I'm astonished so many commenters assume the bias originates
| from the training data and nobody seems to scrutinize the
| adjectives that are used in this test.
| tsss wrote:
| > The system is more sensitive to label something as hate if
| that group is more likely to experience hate on the internet
|
| No it is more sensitive to things that have already been
| labeled as hate in the training data. So much "hate" (whatever
| that may be) against unfavorited groups goes by online without
| anyone batting an eye.
| cubefox wrote:
| This is addressed in the article!
|
| The general point is that if this theory were true, we wouldn't
| expect significantly more bias against Republicans than against
| Democrats. Hence ChatGPT having a general left-wing bias (which
| was also confirmed in other tests, linked in the article) is
| the simpler explanation. People on the left generally judge
| hatred against majority groups and Republicans as less bad.
| rebuilder wrote:
| It's quite possible there's more hateful speech against
| Democrats than Republicans.
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| Likewise the classic "racist bans affect Republicans
| disproportionately because more racists are Republican".
| whatshisface wrote:
| That doesn't completely settle the issue because Democrats
| and Republicans use different words and styles of phrase in
| their polemics.
| slg wrote:
| Exactly. Take the "Democrat Party" versus the "Democratic
| Party". They both look neutral, but a language model will
| code the former as more of an insult. This is because it
| correlates with insults because it resembles language more
| often used by conservative who are more likely to insult
| Democrats than liberals are.
|
| Liberals will put in more effort to avoid language that
| looks like hate speech because they are more concerned
| about being politically correct. Therefore language and
| topics that are more frequently discussed by conservatives
| will be more likely to resemble language that is used in
| hate speech because there is less effort put in to avoid
| that.
| deepspace wrote:
| Yes, that one leapt out at me in the comparison between
| 'Democrat voter' and 'Republican voter'. The term
| 'Democrat' is almost always used as a slur, while
| 'Republican' is just the mainstream term.
| ajross wrote:
| That's exactly what I'm thinking. Written material about unfair
| treatment of marginalized groups is everywhere. The reverse is
| not true. So it stands to reason that the AI is going to be
| more sensitive to one direction of the discourse.
|
| One of the priors that is going unspoken here is that "The
| Truth Is Politically Neutral". And... that's not always
| correct. I mean, to borrow the libertarian angle here: do we
| want the AI to tell us what we want to hear or do we want it to
| tell us the truth?
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| It's changed drastically since release. There are lots of
| people out there who have noticed this and many have saved
| examples of before and after responses to prompts.
| ShredKazoo wrote:
| How did it change?
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Yes, I agree this is the most likely explanation. Just the
| inclusion of "fat" or "poor" (and slurs or any mention of race,
| obviously), or any word which is often used to insult someone
| will make text more likely to be flagged as hateful by a
| moderator in a training set.
|
| I do still think that the men/women bias and the
| Democrat/Republican bias both make more sense as originating in
| moderators favoring one group over the other, since none of
| these are typically used as an insult by themselves.
| slg wrote:
| >I do still think that the men/women bias and the
| Democrat/Republican bias both make more sense as originating
| in moderators favoring one group over the other, since none
| of these are typically used as an insult by themselves.
|
| They may not be used as insults themselves, but they are used
| more in hate speech.
|
| Republicans are generally more opposed to the idea of "hate
| speech" as a category of speech and are therefore less likely
| to identify any speech as hate speech. Democrats have
| embraced it more as a concept, are more likely to label
| something as hate speech, and are more likely to think that
| type of speech is bad. It therefore seems likely that
| Democrats would use what a neutral observer would categorize
| as hate speech less than Republicans due to self-censorship.
| That would result in the word "Republicans" appearing in hate
| speech less often than "Democrats" because the hate speech
| infused insults will be targeting the opposite party.
| zosima wrote:
| Sorry to be snarky, but this looks to me to be one of the
| most contorted attempts at victim blaming I have yet seen.
| slg wrote:
| How am I blaming the victim? I am simply pointing out
| that language can indicate bias without necessarily being
| biased itself.
|
| I am guessing that if we applied a similar model to
| Russian and English, the model would indicate there is an
| inherent bias against the west in Russian and a bias
| against Russia in English. That is all were seeing here.
| It isn't actually indicating anything about the language.
| It is telling us about who uses the language and how they
| use it.
|
| Words, phrases, and linguistic approaches that are
| generally coded as conservative will be more likely to
| denigrate liberals and vice versa. Conservative speech
| will be more likely to be flagged for hate speech because
| conservatives by and large care less about being PC. It
| is important to reiterate that does not mean
| conservatives are necessarily any more racist. Their
| speech just correlates more with racists speech because
| less effort is put into avoiding that correlation.
| zosima wrote:
| > I am guessing that if we applied a similar model to
| Russian and English, the model would indicate there is an
| inherent bias against the west in Russian and a bias
| against Russia in English. That is all were seeing here.
| It isn't actually indicating anything about the language.
| It is telling us about who uses the language and how they
| use it.
|
| So if your argument is that the model has been trained on
| a collection of information about what is hate speech
| assembled by liberals, then I can see it might be
| possible.
|
| But if your argument is that (speculatively) republicans
| engage more in hate speech, then bad things said about
| republicans is not detected as hate speech by the model,
| the jump is rather far.
| slg wrote:
| >So if your argument is that the model has been trained
| on a collection of information about what is hate speech
| assembled by liberals, then I can see it might be
| possible.
|
| It doesn't specifically need to be "assembled by
| liberals" to have a liberal bias. Liberal people are more
| likely to categorize anything as hate speech than
| conservatives. Liberals think being PC is important.
| Conservatives are generally dismissive of being PC. Even
| if there is no inherent bias in the makeup of this
| hypothetical review panel, the panel will result in
| ruling that are more in line with liberal thought because
| conservatives are less likely to take an active lead in
| labeling hate speech.
|
| >But if your argument is that (speculatively) republicans
| engage more in hate speech, then bad things said about
| republicans is not detected as hate speech by the model,
| the jump is rather far.
|
| My argument is that these systems can't actually identify
| hate speech. The question isn't whether Republicans
| engage in hate speech more frequently. They likely engage
| in speech that resembles hate speech more frequently
| because they don't care about being PC.
|
| Usage of the term Latinx is an example. I have heard
| valid arguments why people should are shouldn't use that
| term, however its usage is currently much more common in
| liberal circles. Therefore a phrase using "latinx"
| instead of "latino" is going to be less correlated with
| hate speech because racists just aren't using "latinx".
| tomp wrote:
| > men have a bigger tendency for violent behavior than women
|
| Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but
| s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g (or asians, or
| muslims/christians) and it's discriminatory? (Statistically, both
| statements are justified. Morally, neither is, as we should treat
| people as individuals, not as members of _X_ group.)
| mxkopy wrote:
| Because men are not blacks and women are not whites, I feel
| like this is basic comprehension
|
| We have different names for different things because they are
| different. They're not all just "groups of people", you're
| literally talking about different types. I.e. what generates a
| man is not what generates a black person
| broast wrote:
| I think it is because one is a historically disadvantaged
| minority group and the other is not.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| These statistics you're referring to, how comparable are the
| relative differences? Do they show that men are 4 times more
| violent than women and black people are 1.1 more violent than
| white people, for example? What are these figures?
| gwright wrote:
| I'm not an expert in this area at all but my understanding is
| that the differences are not all like 4X more violent but due
| to the nature of distributions, a small difference in the
| median of a distribution can lead to an enormous difference
| in the tails of the distribution.
| nhchris wrote:
| That's a fair question. According to FBI homicide statistics
| for 2018 [1] and US demographics [2], the Black homicide rate
| is 7.9 / 100k, while the White+Hispanic rate [3] is 1.2 /
| 100k. The female (of all races) homicide rate is 0.42 / 100k.
|
| So the Black homicide rate is 6.7x higher than the
| White+Hispanic rate, while the White+Hispanic homicide rate
| is 2.8x higher than the female (all races) rate.
|
| [1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-
| the-u.s.-... - and using homicide instead of something as
| nebulous as "violence" because it is the statistic most
| difficult to distort, and is immune to over-policing.
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_
| Sta...
|
| [3] The FBI counts Hispanics as White, and has a separate
| 'Ethnicity' category where they mark Hispanic or Latino.
| Assuming all Hispanics in that table were counted as White
| yields an even lower White homicide rate.
| michaelt wrote:
| Presumably prison/jail population statistics - there are
| certainly more males _imprisoned for violent crimes_ than
| women, it 's like a 10:1 ratio.
|
| Of course, the likes of Brock Turner and Prince Andrew
| demonstrate that some demographic groups are relatively less
| punished or relatively more able to avoid punishment, so the
| prison population surely doesn't _directly_ measure
| _inherent_ tendencies.
| slg wrote:
| >Statistically, both statements are justified.
|
| What can you point to that statistically justifies that "Black
| people have a bigger tendency for violent behavior than white
| people"?
|
| Showing crime statistics isn't enough. You need to show that
| given all the details about a person being the same, a Black
| person is more likely to act violently than an identical white
| person. You basically need to correct for all the societal
| reasons that result in people committing violent crime.
| [deleted]
| philwelch wrote:
| > Showing crime statistics isn't enough. You need to show
| that given all the details about a person being the same, a
| Black person is more likely to act violently than an
| identical white person. You basically need to correct for all
| the societal reasons that result in people committing violent
| crime.
|
| I think you're conflating the questions of "which demographic
| group engages in higher rates of violence" and towards the
| question of "why do different demographic groups engage in
| different rates of violence".
| slg wrote:
| They are the same question when one implies that the
| membership of the demographic group is the "why".
| 735892568 wrote:
| The same thing applies when the statement is applied to men
| or any of the other demographic groups that it's applied to
| from time to time.
| mxkopy wrote:
| What's your justification for "the thing that applies to
| black people should be equally applicable to men"? That's
| what this argument boils down to
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| > men have a bigger tendency for violent behavior than
| women
|
| > black people have a bigger tendency for violent behavior
| than white people
|
| It seems way easier to justify that first statement. Are
| there physiological differences between a black man and a
| white man that are as significant as the differences
| between testosterone and estrogen?
| tomp wrote:
| The causal relationship between testosterone and violence
| in humans is weak and disputed.
|
| Should be as much of a reason to doubt it and brand such
| statements as bigotry as "blacks are more violent", no?
| slg wrote:
| That may be true, but we should still avoid false
| equivalencies. There is scientific evidence for a casual
| relationship between testosterone and violence. Even if
| that is debated and there is no full consensus, there is
| still more evidence for it than there is for the idea
| that a person's race has a casual relationship on their
| propensity for violence all else being equal.
| debacle wrote:
| I think it's fair to point out that men commit most violent
| crimes. That's not good/normal/expected it's just a fact.
|
| AI could be used to better understand these associations (e.g.
| why is there a correlation between Asians and academic
| performance) and maybe help social leverage advantages more
| equitably.
| jfoief wrote:
| Parent's point was that it wouldn't be acceptable when done
| regarding some protected group (ex. blacks vs whites), so it
| shouldn't be acceptable when it comes to men vs women
| elefanten wrote:
| Especially when the world never stops turning and social
| change / idea propagation move orders of magnitude faster
| than they did for most of human history.
|
| Consider one of the (largely liberal) discourses rising in
| the past few years that many vital social metrics and
| trends indicate men/boys are screwed and women/girls are
| outcompeting them and thriving much better in present era.
| gwright wrote:
| There is no reason to think that interpretation of metric
| that compared "men" and "women" must be aligned with that
| same metric when men/women is substituted with some other
| populations. When you make the substitution you completly
| change the nature of the comparison. Whether either
| comparison is "acceptable" depends on the metric and the
| populations. There is no ethical rule that says all
| comparisons for group X must be acceptable or all
| comparisons for group Y must be unacceptable.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Again, replace "men" with "African Americans" and you also
| have a statistically true statement (in America at least)
| that would be considered taboo.
| jonathanlb wrote:
| That is a falsehood.
|
| Per the FBI: "White individuals were arrested more often
| for violent crimes than individuals of any other race and
| accounted for 59.1 percent of those arrests."
|
| https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-
| the-u.s.-...
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Maybe I'm not looking at the right number[0] (there is a
| 59.3% lower on the page which appears to be a more
| specific response: "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino")
| but it looks like 59.1% of arrests are against 75.8% of
| the population. Inversely, 40.9% of arrests are against
| 24.2% of the population.
|
| [0]
| https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI125221
| antihipocrat wrote:
| Relative propensity to commit violent crimes is the key
| metric here, not overall volumes.
| jonathanlb wrote:
| No it is not.
|
| > I think it's fair to point out that men commit most
| violent crimes. That's not good/normal/expected it's just
| a fact.
|
| > Again, replace "men" with "African Americans" and you
| also have a statistically true statement (in America at
| least) that would be considered taboo.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| It makes sense for someone to say "most" in the dichotomy
| of man / woman more so than it does in the polychotomy of
| white / black / hispanic or latino / etc. This argument
| relies on that phrasing to Dwight Schrute them on a
| technicality rather than arguing related points.
| legolas2412 wrote:
| Why would you not normalize by population to quote per
| Capita numbers?
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| Because the original comment said "most" and not "more".
| mshake2 wrote:
| Whites are 60% of the population though, so they're being
| arrested in proportion with their representation. They
| also do not separate white-latino and white-non-latino,
| so the colloquial "white" is being lumped in with another
| ethnicity. Also, in 2019, blacks were just under 13% of
| the population, yet they are represented 2x-4x over in
| virtually ever crime category in that table.
|
| So it is true and you're distorting the table.
| jxramos wrote:
| the thing that's always confused me is why would this
| category of white lumping together latino even be a thing
| in the first place? Just seems like a really harebrained
| idea. That association always confuses many hispanics I
| know during each census. Was there a rationale for this
| lumping? I never understood it, just seemed to beg for
| fuzzy/blurred/confusing metrics.
| dmix wrote:
| Maybe it's something that made sense at some point in the
| past and now it's too difficult to change because it will
| mess up historical analysis/trends? Not to mention
| motives will immediately be questioned by anyone who
| tries to fix it and who really wants to die on that hill
| in the current political climate?
|
| South Asian vs East asian is another group that often
| gets lumped together in demographic statistics as
| 'Asian'. Despite significant differences in
| geography/race/culture/etc.
|
| Regardless, I'd also be curious to hear the real rational
| for the Latino one
| jonathanlb wrote:
| How am I distorting the table if I reprinted verbatim
| what the FBI itself reported?
|
| In any case, the picture you're suggesting is itself
| distorted given that other correlating factors such as
| social class, are ignored.
| mshake2 wrote:
| You're responsible for the truthfulness of the statements
| that you make, especially when the data is right there on
| the page for you to verify for yourself. "Oh I'm just
| parroting someone else's distortion as fact" is not a
| defense.
|
| >the picture you're suggesting is itself distorted given
| that other correlating factors such as social class, are
| ignored.
|
| The picture I'm suggesting is that which the data shows,
| and you seem to be making some other leap to say
| something that I have not said.
| [deleted]
| chitowneats wrote:
| Is there anything we could point about women? Nothing as
| terrible as being violent as far as I know, but what about
| other things? I agree with your premise but I believe it
| follows we must speak clearly in all cases.
| jfoief wrote:
| Women are a protected group, so people have biases that
| prevent them from seeing the reality when it comes to this
| topic. As evolved beings made to maximize fitness, there
| were a lot of strategies that worked for women and shaped
| their psychology that noone dare point out. Also anyone
| coming too close to the truth will quickly get banned.
| debacle wrote:
| Women tend to be bad at salary negotiation, and less likely
| to change jobs. Middle aged women being taken advantage of
| in the corporate world is tragic.
| mxkopy wrote:
| This 'men are violent, therefore women must also be bad in
| some way' rhetoric makes no sense. There's no purpose for
| it other than assuaging sore feelings.
| Jensson wrote:
| Women are bad at higher level math in the same way men
| are violent. Not all are, but its a trend.
|
| However you aren't allowed to say that for one group, but
| you are allowed for the other. So this has nothing to do
| about statistical accuracy, its just political pressure
| from one side.
| mxkopy wrote:
| It's nothing to do with political pressure and more to do
| with ill-formed comparisons.
|
| You can't just substitute in random groups for another.
| In order to make a statement you need to know what you're
| talking about. And it seems like the HN crowd that so
| desperately wants to say blacks are more violent than
| whites, these people have no clue what they're talking
| about. If you go and look at history you'll quickly see
| how that statement is just ill-formed.
| [deleted]
| lmm wrote:
| Women who never marry get paid more than men who never
| marry once you adjust for hours worked.
|
| (Once you adjust for education level this disappears)
| 735892568 wrote:
| Nothing is just a fact. If it's fair to point out that men
| are charged/arrested/convicted at a higher rate, it's also
| fair to point out that black people are
| charged/arrested/convicted at a higher rate. Neither of those
| statistics are "just a fact". They are complex phenomena that
| we don't fully understand the cause of and should avoid
| drawing unsupported conclusions from.
| jMyles wrote:
| > Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but
| s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g
|
| ...because the former holds true across correlations (and is
| difficult to confound anyway, since the group 'men' and the
| group 'women' are distributed in like proportion through
| correlated groups - rich and poor, white and black, around the
| world, etc), while the latter is very difficult to convincingly
| show because controlling for economic status alone eliminates
| more than half of the gap.
|
| Men are genuinely, testably, provably, empirically more violent
| than women. It's hard to apply any numerate approach to the
| data which does not support this conclusion. The correlation
| between melanation and violence is murky and very plausibly
| non-existent except as artifacts of confounding factors.
|
| Moreover, the definition of "violent behavior" for the purposes
| of essentially all major research on this topic excludes major
| wars. If you include projection of military force around the
| world, it seems likely that the violence perpetrated by white
| folks is likely to be proportionally greater.
|
| > Morally, neither is, as we should treat people as
| individuals, not as members of X group.
|
| I broadly agree with this statement, but I think we can still,
| eg, teach boys not to rape without running afoul of this
| standard.
| cataphract wrote:
| Your standard for saying A is more X than B is a bit strange.
| For me, all it means is roughly that when picking two
| individuals from A and B the one from A is more likely to
| have greater X (assuming here the distributions are not
| weird).
|
| This is in itself useful information, at least in principle.
| To take the political correct example, let's say that I am a
| bissexual man. A priori, the probability that I will be
| attacked will be greater when dating a man. Is this useful? I
| don't know. That will depend how strong the difference is in
| the first place and how fast I can update my estimation based
| on new information.
|
| How can you be sure than men are intrinsically more violent
| than women anyway? Couldn't it just be because of the way men
| are raised (i.e. the patriarchy)?
| erichocean wrote:
| > _Men are genuinely, testably, provably, empirically more
| violent than women._
|
| It's widely known among researchers that women initiate
| domestic violence more frequently compared to men.
|
| Example (1s on Google): https://aliesq.medium.com/extensive-
| research-women-initiate-...
|
| I first learned about this from a famous feminist (woman)
| from the UK.
| sterlind wrote:
| It also makes a lot more sense biologically. Testosterone and
| estrogen have strong mental effects, and alter brain
| development. The brain is sexually dimorphic in complex ways,
| borne out by many studies. The brain is not racially
| dimorphic at all.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > The brain is not racially dimorphic at all.
|
| It does not need to be. Culture differences are a
| reasonable enough explanation.
| erichocean wrote:
| > _The brain is not racially dimorphic at all._
|
| Well, since _dimorphic_ means "occurring in or
| representing two distinct forms", I think you are likely
| 100% correct.
| camdenlock wrote:
| A popular belief system insists that people be treated as
| members of X group before all else, and all such groups must be
| ranked by their oppressive power.
|
| That ranking is effectively arbitrary, and so the system is
| used mainly as a bludgeon of mobs who wish to silence and abuse
| others.
|
| That's why we're seeing the kind of warped reasoning you're
| alluding to.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but
| s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g (or asians, or
| muslims/christians) and it's discriminatory? (Statistically,
| both statements are justified.
|
| Are BOTH statistically justified in ways that control for
| other, socioeconomic factors and such?
| [deleted]
| belorn wrote:
| It is culture. Actually science on violence and aggression tend
| to show a bit different picture, and also why such statistics
| is of such a low value. Good research tend to explore the null
| hypothesis and alternative explanation for statistical results.
|
| A common used data point is that men commit most violent
| crimes. Using the same data from Sweden one can also say that
| today Muslim are 20 times more likely per person to commit rape
| than Christians, and about similar likely per person to commit
| murder. Same numbers can also be used to replace Muslims and
| Christians with immigrants and natives, or Arab and Germanics.
| For social scientists that data wouldn't be hugely interesting,
| as they would look towards social economic status and war
| refugee status (i.e. things related to PTSD injuries). The
| conclusions would more likely be that there are a bigger
| tendency for anti-social behavior by people with minimal social
| connections and economical destitute, especially if they
| experience severe emotional trauma.
|
| One fairly interesting statistics to me is that households with
| either man-woman, man-man, and woman-woman all have equal rate
| of violent behavior. Statistically that is to me much more
| interesting. If men inherently had more violent behavior and
| women less violent behavior, man-man and woman-woman household
| should show a difference in violence. It also a rather strange
| statistical phenomenon that if a bisexual woman go from a
| heterosexual relation into a homosexual relation, her
| statistical data for violent behavior increases by 200%. A man
| who does the same decrease his violent behavior by half. Why
| would that be if there existed a biological difference in
| violent behavior?
| Llamamoe wrote:
| One claim I've seen is that men commit more violent crime
| because it's more common for a man to be physically stronger
| than another person, while the rates of non-physial violence
| are much closer across gender boundaries.
| xp84 wrote:
| > non-physial violence
|
| Come again? What's non-physical violence? Mental violence?
| Writing someone a mean letter?
| greybox wrote:
| This reminds me of a HN article that appeared yesterday: "The
| philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined bullshit as speech that is
| intended to persuade without regard for the truth. By this
| measure, OpenAI's new chatbot ChatGPT is the greatest bullshitter
| ever" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34618376
|
| Like its own output, it's moderation rules are optimized to
| appear fair, rather than actually be truly fair.
|
| Also I'm reminded of xcom-2's presenting you with success
| probabilities that "feel" correct to the player, rather than
| actually being accurate ..
| xwolfi wrote:
| How do you define fair, mathematically if possible ?
| pessimizer wrote:
| You can define a ton of types of "fair." It's just like
| "random."
|
| The big "fairs" imo are:
|
| a) majority votes, one person one vote,
|
| b) auctions where everyone starts with the same funds,
|
| c) random picks, where everyone has an equal chance of being
| chosen.
|
| None of these have anything to do with ideas, they have to do
| with people. The way to be fair about ideas is to express
| them without distortion or omission, in a way that would be
| recognizable to the _people_ who support them. The only way
| to do this is to leave out all of the extraneous commentary
| and stick to clear, falsifiable statements.
|
| edit: what generative language models do is parrot a ton of
| acrimonious political discussions. Ironically, they can't be
| fair because they have no values.
| joshuaheard wrote:
| Instead of deciding the content moderation on a specific item
| in a category (i.e. black people or women), use the category
| itself. So moderate the language if it is biased against any
| race, not just black people; or any gender, not just women.
| greybox wrote:
| Maybe I worded it badly. I was attempting to make a
| distinction between moderation rules that are designed to be
| fair based on some world view VS rules that are automatically
| generated based on some sample set to _appear_ convincingly
| fair to us.
|
| In essence the AI is just giving us what the majority of it's
| test data tells it that we want to hear.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| I think the whole point of this is that the first part of
| your "vs" statement and your second part can have huge
| overlap if you happen to agree with the worldview that is
| informing the responses of the AI. It looks fair to you if
| it spits out the response that fits your view of the world.
|
| But the whole point is, there's no such thing as
| "objective", especially when you start talking about
| people. There's no place to stand as a human being that
| doesn't involve experiencing the world through one's own
| consciousness, which has an implicit value structure.
| Everyone has their own little "religion", and when they
| share that worldview with other people, the religion then
| becomes that which holds the group together. "Ligament"
| (that which holds bones together) and "religion" (that
| which holds groups together) have the same root: "lig"
| which means "to bind".
|
| AI is revealing this to a large segment of our population
| that considers themselves "objective" and "secular", and
| the cognitive dissonance that is coming out as a result is
| funny and disturbing in equal parts.
| greybox wrote:
| > there's no such thing as "objective", especially when
| you start talking about people
|
| I agree with you.
|
| However I would add to your statement about AI being
| revealing. One thing that AI I feel is revealing to me at
| least, is that it's now making me think much more about
| the distinction "a human search for truth" however flawed
| that may be, and things that are made simply to appeal to
| my biases.
|
| Linking this back to the topic at hand, maybe there is no
| such thing as objective, but there is a difference
| between a rule written by a human that was at least
| trying to search for truth VS a rule written by an system
| that just parrots the most pleasing thing back at us.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| And my point is, for those working on this system, it
| appears to be very difficult for them to see the
| difference between "trying to search for truth" and "a
| rule written by a system that just parrots t he most
| pleasing thing back to us" because it is a venn diagram
| that completely overlaps, since they think that they are
| "trying to search for truth" and haven't considered that
| they might be wrong, because everyone they work with sees
| the world the same way they do. They are never
| challenged, until the platforms get exposed to the
| public.
|
| This is essentially the same situation as people who have
| never left their state, or their home country. Many
| things they take for granted and that they consider to be
| "basic human nature" actually end up being very cultural
| and very uncommon once one starts traveling outside one's
| home country. But you are completely unaware of these
| situations because they never get challenged when you
| live in a culture that instantiated itself in you as you
| grew up.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| True fairness is unachievable as it is a subjective quality.
| Every side will attempt to tug the rope in their direction.
| wongarsu wrote:
| True fairness is subjective, but we can objectively measure
| true equality. At least on simple metrics like "what happens
| if we change the word men for women or left-wing to right-
| wing". And I think that's worth striving for
| greybox wrote:
| see my comment below on this: _" Maybe I worded it badly. I
| was" ...._
| kepler1 wrote:
| ChatGPT just gave us the manual to what's ok / not ok to joke
| about as a comedian. Or mention as a politician.
| hunglee2 wrote:
| Fascinating research, which incidentally, is verifiable simply by
| copying the sentence instances and trying it yourself. What is
| certainly the case, is that labelling and output restrictions are
| not entirely dependent on the input but on a hidden taxonomy of
| identity groups. We should all see the obvious problems with this
| smrtinsert wrote:
| The author hasn't established why political groups should be
| treated equally - is it because he simply feels it should be that
| way?
| poszlem wrote:
| Many people, including those on HN, vehemently deny the existence
| of this phenomenon, or if they agree that it happens it is
| considered a positive outcome.
|
| The AI moderation appears to have adopted the tenets of Applied
| Postmodernism, which holds that discrimination against a majority
| group or an assumed oppressive group is not truly discriminatory.
|
| That is neither a self-evident truth, nor something that is an
| opinion of a majority of people, yet somehow it's now baked-in
| into one of the most powerful product on the planet.
|
| Somehow we have an AI that seems to believe in the incredibly
| destructive notion of Kendi-ism: "The only remedy to present
| discrimination is future discrimination."
| black_13 wrote:
| [dead]
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| This is something the right leaning groups have always been
| saying, but it is exciting that the article manages to come up
| with an empirical way to determine the "belief system" of the AI
| model.
|
| People on the left shouldn't rejoice either. The left and the
| right wing are mostly the same, and both follow similar
| approaches to marginalize people who they feel are undesirable,
| so it'll eventually come back to bite the left too in due course.
| thestevesie wrote:
| It's not just right leaning groups, but anyone with any basic
| observation skills. Its pretty obvious that OpenAI injected
| their own political biases into their model which say it is
| okay to discriminate against certain groups but not others.
|
| I'd like to see the end of racial politics, but there are too
| many con artists mostly (but not entirely) associated with D
| party that gets votes and money by inflaming people across
| racial lines.
| RangerScience wrote:
| > pretty obvious
|
| That's a serious claim. Do you have anything to back it up?
| fleddr wrote:
| How about the actual article?
| IceHegel wrote:
| The other comments show how the demonstrated biases were
| created.
|
| In many well meaning liberals heart, there is a strongly held
| but rarely publicly discussed belief that they alone belong to
| the well-meaning, high IQ class. Any other worldview or
| ideological flavor is always understood by this type as simply
| incorrect, perhaps caused by failures in morals or intellect.
| Talk about a buzzkill.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Good point but that's just the way beliefs work. And most
| people lack the metacognitive concept of analyzing their
| beliefs or understand what a belief really is.
|
| It's the definition of a belief. Beliefs are structural
| components of cognition. But also they are not the same thing
| as reality.
|
| People should be educated about this concept. Without the
| education, it is impossible for people to tell the difference
| between a deeply held belief and reality.
| IceHegel wrote:
| Agreed, but when your own beliefs don't align with the
| dominant belief structure of society you are forced to
| confront this genuine diversity quite often.
|
| When you are in the minority, your beliefs are challenged
| and you get comfortable defending them and getting along
| with those who don't hold them. The same cannot be said of
| our liberal order. Some genuine self reflection on the part
| of our current liberal order is badly needed.
| guelo wrote:
| Everybody thinks their world view is the correct one
| otherwise they wouldn't believe it.
| IceHegel wrote:
| There is something unhealthy about publicly saying "I
| believe x because it's true" but privately thinking "I
| don't have to consider if x is false because everyone who
| disagrees with x didn't go to college" (or has some other
| undesirable group trait).
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Some views allow for more generous interpretations of the
| qualities of adherents of other views.
| ineptech wrote:
| There's something richly ironic about bashing your political
| outgroup in a thread discussing why an LLM trained on
| internet posts would exhibit political bias.
| flutas wrote:
| > why an LLM trained
|
| The article isn't even about ChatGPT, it's about the
| moderation endpoint that OpenAI provides.
|
| https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/moderation
| ineptech wrote:
| And that endpoint is powered by what, if not an LLM?
| notduncansmith wrote:
| This is true of many well-meaning conservatives, as well. I
| think we get tripped up forgetting there are rational people
| on both sides, who are not going to change their views but
| nonetheless accept that they might be wrong. It's very
| convenient for those seeking power when we forget this.
| IceHegel wrote:
| Yes I think many people who have dissenting views today,
| conservative or otherwise, feel more and more that the
| establishment position is fundamentally bankrupt and that
| most establishment members do have any deep convictions.
|
| I myself wonder how many of the liberal flag bearers would
| change their "views" without protest if they saw another
| ideology becoming dominant. We've seen this happen with
| gender blank-slatism. It has been fully adopted by most
| western institutions by osmosis, and the priorities of a
| 60's or 70's liberal were put in the back seat without
| objection.
| freedomben wrote:
| Indeed, I think some of the most damaging policies in
| existence are the draconian drug laws. There is clearly
| much bipartisan support for them, but Conservatives in
| general are much more deeply held on it. Many believe drug
| use (except their own) is immoral and that justifies the
| heavy paternalistic approach they take. There are
| definitely "morally superior" people on both sides of the
| coin, they just tend to have different issues on which they
| think they know better than everybody else.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| For real?
|
| Drug use (including alcohol) is probably the most common
| way for people to seriously and irreperably destroy their
| lives.
|
| A "paternalistic approach" is absolutely justified if it
| can prevent this level of harm.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _Drug use (including alcohol) is probably the most
| common way for people to seriously and irreperably
| destroy their lives._
|
| I actually agree with that. But I don't see the logical
| progression from that to locking people in cages and
| forcing them to buy from the least trustworthy people on
| earth as the solution. During Prohibition in the US did
| lives stop getting destroyed by alcohol?
|
| I see a lot of lives seriously and irreperably destroyed
| by criminal records and long prison sentences that
| otherwise could have been productive.
|
| > _A "paternalistic approach" is absolutely justified if
| it can prevent this level of harm._
|
| Would you advocate for government banning processed
| sugar? Sugar behaves like a drug in most ways, including
| addictiveness (psychological and physiological),
| euphoria, etc. Untold levels of harm are caused by people
| to their own bodies and the healthcare system at large by
| over indulging in sugar and products containing such.
| Diabetes is a true living hell that never stops one it's
| started.
|
| Following that logic, it seems like the government should
| jail people for sugar use, but that obviously seems
| absurd (reductio ad absurdum).
| zajio1am wrote:
| > During Prohibition in the US did lives stop getting
| destroyed by alcohol?
|
| I do not want to defend Prohibition, but AFAIK it has a
| persistent effect on alcohol consumption patterns in USA
| by lowering per-capita consumption of hard spirits (that
| was significantly higher before).
| int_19h wrote:
| Putting people in prison for drug use is also a very
| common way to seriously and irreparably destroy their
| lives, including cases where their drug use was not, by
| itself, harming them.
| IceHegel wrote:
| I think this view is empirically quite challenged. It's
| practically impossible to win the debate for strict drug
| laws because key pieces of sociological evidence are just
| inadmissible on stereotype grounds.
|
| But when you see the effect of these libertarian policies
| in American cities the results speak for themselves. Harm
| reduction and lax enforcement have really destroyed some
| communities, and this was simply not as large a problem
| in the 50s or 60s.
|
| There's really no better poster child for this phenomenon
| than San Francisco. It was the economic center of the
| technology boom and unlike New York or London of
| centuries past, completely failed to become a "center of
| the world" city despite having the "center of the world"
| economy. By most accounts, it actually functions less
| well than it did before the internet was invented.
| freedomben wrote:
| I think there's a lot more to the cities. The drugs that
| people have access to are in part so damaging to them and
| the community because they are entirely unregulated and
| sometimes aren't even made up of what the person thinks
| they are taking. This (is a big part of) what leads to
| the overdoses and addiction. Mix that in with the threat
| of law enforcement, job loss, and heavy social stigma,
| etc that prevents people from seeking help, and you have
| a recipe for disaster. Imagine if everytime you bought a
| beer you had to wonder if you could trust the seller, and
| whether it had methanol or fentanyl in it?
|
| No doubt there would be some damage from libertarian drug
| policies, but it would look a lot more like alcohol does,
| which IMHO would be less damaging to society and people
| than prohibition and heavy handed legal punishments is.
| People do need help with alochol issues sometimes, and it
| does sometimes destroy lives/families, but we don't make
| it orders of magnitude worse by treating them like
| criminals. (although we did try it in the US a hundred
| years ago and it didn't go well like we thought it
| would).
| IceHegel wrote:
| I want the drug problem solved. I don't care if it's with
| harsh laws or fentanyl vending machines next to treatment
| centers. I am interested in what works.
|
| I think there is strong empirical evidence that drug
| liberalization sounds good but has failed where tried. If
| an American city can turn it around (as SF had a great
| chance to do) I'll change teams and stop talking about
| the issue.
|
| Now imagine the inverse. We find somewhere a thriving
| city with "draconian" drug policies. Would you reconsider
| your position?
| random314 wrote:
| This sounds like one of those "fascists and anti fascists are
| both equally bad talks". Perhaps we can have the AI believe
| that "Taliban's leader Hibatullah Akhundzada and Jacinda Arden
| are both equally bad and marginalize people who they feel are
| undesirable". As you have explained the left and right wing are
| mostly the same. Let's hope for the "right leaning" groups are
| also treated "fairly" and Hitler and his fans are not unfairly
| targeted by AI.
| fallingknife wrote:
| If you call yourself "anti-fascists," and then go around
| acting like brownshirts, you're not actually anti-fascist.
| int_19h wrote:
| The irony is that the original antifa -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion -
| was, essentially, a KPD-affiliated militia. As such, their
| definition of "fascism" included social democrats at some
| point, and their propaganda included bits like "fighting
| fascism means fighting the SPD just as much as it means
| fighting Hitler and the parties of Bruning".
|
| I don't know why anti-authoritarian lefties today are so
| eager to embrace this legacy, or at least its symbolism.
| poszlem wrote:
| [flagged]
| blackshaw wrote:
| "Arguably"?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > The most famous anti-fascists were and are communists...
|
| I dunno, we make quite a few WWII movies about heroic
| Americans storming Normandy's beaches and whatnot.
| otikik wrote:
| That "arguably" is making a lot of work on that phrase.
| Arguably.
| algorias wrote:
| Read up on history. Communism caused millions of needless
| deaths.
| otikik wrote:
| And fascism is the opposite of that. But I should read
| history. Right.
| poszlem wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
|
| https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FzZnAAAAMAAJ&q=%22the
| +fa...
| otikik wrote:
| That's the phrase I am referring to is this one.
|
| > The most famous anti-fascists were and are communists
|
| You are equating Anti-fascists to communists, which is
| ... a position.
|
| The most famous anti-fascists are _the democrats_. Not
| the American Democrat party - anyone who believes in the
| ideals of democracy, personal freedom, and equality.
| luckylion wrote:
| > The most famous anti-fascists are the democrats.
|
| They might be the most numerous ones, but the anti-
| fascism has pretty much always been claimed by the
| communists, they even built a famous anti-fascist
| protection wall to stop the fascists from sabotaging
| their economy. Very few democrats felt the need to talk
| about themselves as anti-fascists, that's a far-left
| thing. Democratically minded people act anti-fascist but
| don't speak of it. Communists speak of anti-fascism while
| they torture political opponents to death.
| ryandrake wrote:
| If you're going to attribute deaths that happen in a
| communist country to communism itself, then don't you
| need to also attribute deaths that happen in
| democratic/capitalist countries to democracy and
| capitalism? Should we add them up and compare?
| bee_rider wrote:
| You see Ryan, in capitalist America, you fail economy!
|
| Hmm, the joke doesn't work as well reversed.
| danielbln wrote:
| Regarding horseshoe theory:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#Criticism
|
| Regarding communists and fascism:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
|
| It's like saying the nazis were socialist because they have
| "socialist" in the name.
| joemazerino wrote:
| [flagged]
| random314 wrote:
| Truth has a liberal bias.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I have always found it amusing that people who use this
| slogan tend to be deeply concerned about bias from the
| other side but see no problem with such a glib statement.
| danielbln wrote:
| Because that statement is meant as sarcasm, highlighting
| the absurdity of certain claims, and not a literal
| statement.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| That's the thing though, I never hear that statement from
| conservatives or non-liberals - they never seem to utter
| it, even in a sarcastic or mocking tone.
|
| I only ever hear it from what seem to be sincere
| liberals/progressives, and often in the context of
| dismissing claims of liberal bias. In fact, that seems to
| be exactly how it was used in this very comment chain.
| otikik wrote:
| Because only right-leaning organizations are valid
| sources.
| algorias wrote:
| No, because ideally you'd have an ideologically neutral
| source, specially for politically charged topics. But
| such sources are essentially nonexistent, so we're left
| trying to subtract out the biases from wikipedia
| articles.
|
| Don't get me wrong, wikipedia has value; it's just not a
| trustworthy source for certain topics. At the very least
| you should take a peek at the "history" tab to see
| alternative viewpoints.
| DoctorOW wrote:
| Wikipdeia is double plus ungood for containing thought
| crimes against The Party
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Everyone marginalizes people they find undesirable. When was
| the last time you thought "where is a group of people I can't
| stand to be around? I want to go hang out with them right
| now."
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Sure, but why do we have to conflate "disagreement" with
| "undesirability"? I'm old enough to remember a time when we
| could disagree about things without pretending our
| opponents are Hitler reincarnate. I often find myself
| wanting to spend more time with people I disagree with to
| understand their perspectives better or to help them see
| that we probably have more common ground than they may
| realize or even just to do my part to heal our culture by
| rejecting the notion that it's necessary, good, or morally
| acceptable to hate people we disagree with.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| > Sure, but why do we have to conflate "disagreement"
| with "undesirability"?
|
| Because most people find being challenged very tiresome
| and uncomfortable. People who are high in openness
| actually enjoy being challenged, but they are a minority
| (and it's definitely a spectrum).
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I believe this, but there was also a time when it was
| considered a virtue to be more open-minded--calling
| someone "a literal Nazi" over some minor ideological
| disagreement (and then calling for them to be fired,
| attacked, etc) would have been roundly and correctly
| criticized. Now it seems like it's considered virtuous to
| exaggerate differences, police ideas, etc.
| blueflow wrote:
| Maybe "thats right-wing rhetoric" has been the method of
| suppressing what we found uncomfortable.
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| Eh, it's usually the rhetoric that's appalling, then traced
| back to the right, not the other way around.
|
| If you could give an example of rhetoric that is suppressed
| because it's "right wing", that would be helpful.
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| I don't know why you're being downvoted - you're right.
|
| It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or
| smaller government that get's censored. It's people telling
| their viewers to harass Sandyhook parents, or participate
| in a violent insurrection, or something similar that gets
| censored.
|
| Playing the victim card without acknowledging TOS
| violations is intentionally misleading.
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| Right, nobody (AFAIK) has been banned from Twitter,
| YouTube, Facebook, etc. for espousing Laissez-faire
| economic policies.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or
| smaller government that get's censored.
|
| When cancel culture was running amok, people were getting
| fired/reprimanded/harassed for advocating nonviolent
| protests over riots, for using Chinese words that sound
| vaguely like an English racial slur, for interviewing
| Black Americans whose opinions differ slightly from the
| official narrative about what a Black American ought to
| think, for throwing a geisha-themed party for your young
| daughter, for wearing a prom dress inspired by a
| traditional Chinese aesthetic, etc. None of these are
| remotely right-wing offenses.
|
| This is the whole problem--the left harms people whose
| actions/opinions are well within the Overton Window and
| upon criticism, they retreat to some variation of "we're
| just opposing objectively horrible people!". This whole
| game hurts left-wing credibility and it easier for far-
| right viewpoints to enter the mainstream (is so-and-so an
| actual Nazi or are they just failing to completely toe
| the left-wing party line?). It's also just shitty
| behavior that makes people angry and pushes them
| rightward, and it does nothing to help left-wing causes.
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| When people say reprehensible things, they receive an
| amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is
| reasonable).
|
| The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology,
| however, so not sure why you're bringing it up. If your
| expectation is that 50% of backlash would be left leaning
| and 50% would be right leaning, I don't think that's
| reasonable, but if you think the backlash is because
| someone is conservative generally, you'd be mistaken.
|
| There are a _great many_ conservatives who can make their
| ideological arguments comfortably without being
| offensive. Conservative ideology isn 't inherently
| offensive, but specific human beings say specific things
| that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > When people say reprehensible things, they receive an
| amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is
| reasonable).
|
| And also when people say not reprehensible things.
|
| > The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology,
| however, so not sure why you're bringing it up.
|
| Then it's strange that it's been intimately connected
| with looming war against Russia and China, so many
| intelligence agencies have so many employees that spend
| 100% of their time on it, and so many congresspeople are
| making direct requests for censorship on political lines.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > When people say reprehensible things, they receive an
| amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is
| reasonable).
|
| Sure, but we aren't talking about reprehensible things,
| we're talking about "advocating against political
| violence" and cultural appreciation.
|
| > The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology,
| however, so not sure why you're bringing it up
|
| Because it's clearly about punishing deviation from a
| partisan line.
|
| > If your expectation is that 50% of backlash would be
| left leaning and 50% would be right leaning, I don't
| think that's reasonable, but if you think the backlash is
| because someone is conservative generally, you'd be
| mistaken.
|
| That's not my expectation, my expectation is that we
| don't persecute people for moderate beliefs (and no,
| caricaturing those beliefs to make them sound extreme
| doesn't count), nor do we tolerate said behavior.
|
| > There are a great many conservatives who can make their
| ideological arguments comfortably without being
| offensive. Conservative ideology isn't inherently
| offensive, but specific human beings say specific things
| that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out.
|
| As previously discussed, a lot of people are "calling
| out" others for utterly innocuous transgressions. For
| example, my state subreddit is presently arguing that
| families who homeschool their kids are closet Nazis
| (that's the very popular opinion on that particular
| subreddit).
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| I guess I'm not familiar with people who are falling into
| this category you're suggesting. Could you cite some
| specific examples?
|
| I'm thinking of Kanye, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Nick
| Fuentes, etc. These people expressed reprehensible
| viewpoints and were subsequently removed from various
| platforms as a result. That's not politics; what they
| said was reprehensible regardless of political ideology.
| You can find people who expressed similar political
| thoughts without the hate, but the people I named can't
| figure out how to do that and therefore have been removed
| (to some degree or another) from the communal discourse.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| The examples cited in my original comment were all
| specific examples. Some names include Lee Fang, Daniel
| Shor, James Damore.
| thrownawaydad wrote:
| Not OP, but consider illegal immigration. It is apparently
| leading to a surge in child sex trafficking, among other
| ills.
|
| But, being against illegal immigration is currently
| considered "right wing", and in a lot of contexts will get
| you fired, vilified, and perhaps beaten.
|
| There's your example.
|
| (I'm a child of immigrants, and don't particularly have an
| opinion of how much immigration is good. I do, though,
| believe this amount should be determined by legislative
| process and then tightly enforced.)
| minsc_and_boo wrote:
| You're mixing up terms here.
|
| Being against _legal_ immigration and implementing
| policies to make it more difficult to become legal (as
| the right has done) has lead to the enslavement of
| immigrant women and other sex trafficking. Being against
| _sane and fair_ immigration policies is what people react
| to.
|
| Everyone is against illegal immigration and child sex
| trafficking, but vary vastly on the solutions.
| MrMan wrote:
| we need to return to the very high levels of immigration
| we had in the 19th century, it would really help our
| population and economy to grow. it will help the country
| a lot in the long term
| pessimizer wrote:
| No, it's the argument by association that's appalling,
| because it's dishonest. The rhetoric is usually just wrong.
| Being wrong is superior to being dishonest. Wrong people
| can be corrected.
| mellosouls wrote:
| If you read the article you will see examples of imbalanced
| moderation that conservatives have pointed out for ages
| with unfortunate dismissals (like yours? am I reading you
| correctly?) in response.
|
| This article is useful as it places them in a relatively
| neutral investigative context.
|
| It is obviously right that racist, sexist, etc bias is
| pointed out, but that case is not at all helped by
| complacency in response to political bias towards liberal
| mores when also clearly present.
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| That's my point; it's not clear there's any political
| bias taking place here. The person in question has a
| laundry list of racist, sexist, etc. remarks over his
| long career in the public eye, most of which took place
| outside of serious politics entirely.
| mellosouls wrote:
| _That 's my point; it's not clear there's any political
| bias taking place here._
|
| What are you talking about?? Reread the article:
|
| _OpenAI content moderation system is more permissive of
| hateful comments being made about conservatives than the
| same comments being made about liberals._
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| The argument conservatives provide is the idea that
| they're overly censored on platforms; how permissively
| they're spoken of (hatefully or otherwise) is unrelated.
| If anything, it's _in alignment_ to their ideology, not
| against it.
|
| But let's say what you're claiming is true for a moment.
| Political ideology shouldn't have been included with
| race, gender, and religion anyway; it's _perfectly
| acceptable_ to discriminate against someone based on
| their political affiliation, as it 's 100% a choice,
| where as disability, race, gender, and religion are not.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I gave a couple of examples in my sibling comment. One
| example began as "right wing rhetoric" (if you consider
| moderate conservatives to be 'right wing'; I'm not sure
| exactly how they fit into official taxonomies) and the
| other began as moderate liberal rhetoric that was adopted
| by right-wing groups after the fact. I think lazy, out-of-
| hand dismissal of both kinds is common, but I think the
| left has cried "right-wing", "Nazi", "white supremacist",
| etc so often (and over such obviously innocuous stuff) over
| the last decade that this sort of rhetoric has lost much of
| its effect (on the other hand, the right is working as hard
| as ever to make 'right wing' something honest people want
| to distance themselves from).
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| I don't think any honest defense of CRT said any of the
| things you claimed here, where have you heard those
| arguments?
|
| Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and
| ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology
| exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but
| those ideas aren't bad _because_ they 're conservative,
| they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory.
|
| _Anyone_ espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem,
| regardless of their political leanings.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > I don't think any honest defense of CRT said any of the
| things you claimed here, where have you heard those
| arguments?
|
| I've heard them all over for many years (including on
| this forum for a good while a few years ago), but I agree
| they aren't "honest" (and the dishonesty is precisely the
| problem).
|
| > Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and
| ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology
| exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but
| those ideas aren't bad because they're conservative,
| they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory.
|
| I agree. But the problem is that moderate ideas are being
| caricatured and labeled as "Nazi" or "white supremacist"
| so that they enjoy the same social censure that we would
| give to bonafide hateful ideas.
|
| > Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem,
| regardless of their political leanings.
|
| Yes, but we're not talking about "espousing Nazi
| ideology", we're talking about people who are espousing
| moderate ideas that get treated like they're hateful.
| Consider for example James Damore's "Google Memo" and how
| it was framed as a hateful, "anti-diversity screed" by
| virtually the entirety of the media despite that the full
| text was readily available. His arguments were squarely
| liberal in nature even if he made some factual errors.
| Consider Lee Fang or David Shor (both committed
| progressives).
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| The Google memo _was_ hateful, anti-diversity, and he got
| exactly what he deserved (he was fired). According to his
| LinkedIn[0], he 's been working at an unnamed startup for
| the past 4 years, so it's not like he was "cancelled" in
| any real sense.
|
| And Lee Fang and David Shor are fine? I literally cannot
| find either controversy you're referencing on the front
| page of Google or Google News.
|
| [0] Not sure I'm allowed to post this, but it's easily
| discoverable.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I'm not sure what you have in mind, but there is definitely a
| propensity on the left to try to shut down any argument with
| "that's a right wing position". For example, opposition to
| CRT was largely a moderate/liberal thing before your average
| conservative even heard the term, but even then criticism was
| dismissed with "people who criticize CRT just want to say the
| N word / get their slaves back / etc". Similarly,
| conservatives were pretty quick to coin the term "Ferguson
| Effect" for the pattern of increasing violent crimes in areas
| that saw large-scale anti-police protests, so naturally
| academics and the media reflexively dismissed the notion out
| of hand, but now it seems like crime researchers have largely
| come around to that viewpoint (to be clear, I'm not
| criticizing skepticism of conservatives' initial claims, but
| rather the incurious, out-of-hand dismissal).
| habitue wrote:
| I don't know why left wing groups would celebrate. Other than
| the conservative category, most of the descriptors he used were
| inborn traits like being straight, being white, being a man, or
| immutable attributes like being from a particular country. (And
| honestly, being conservative may be one of those traits too,
| but it's less obviously true).
|
| I know it's common to look at the most unhinged people on
| Twitter and say all leftists are like that, but I really do
| think most left leaning people would say that it isn't a good
| outcome for it to be biased in this way.
| zug_zug wrote:
| Yeah, I'd guess HN is a pretty 50/50 split left/right. I
| don't expect to see anybody on this post championing this
| result as the ideal state.
|
| So if your image of left is "twitter left" maybe reconsider
| recalibrating it to "half of hn."
| orangecat wrote:
| _Yeah, I 'd guess HN is a pretty 50/50 split left/right._
|
| Maybe on economics (I'd say closer to 2/3 left), but on
| social issues it's overwhelmingly left. What percentage are
| anti-abortion, for example?
|
| The main split seems to be between old-style liberals who
| support free speech as a fundamental principle and
| progressives who believe that speech should often be
| restricted in order to protect marginalized groups.
| jeoqn wrote:
| There are mainstream conservative points of view that
| posted here get flagged by users and sometimes even by
| dang himself (you can see it was him when the comment
| tree automatically collapses, only he can do that)
| dang wrote:
| No, comments with enough user flags get automatically
| collapsed as well.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| [dead]
| nhchris wrote:
| > I don't know why left wing groups would celebrate. Other
| than the conservative category, most of the descriptors he
| used were inborn traits like being straight, being white,
| being a man, or immutable attributes like being from a
| particular country.
|
| We're really going to pretend the left hasn't been demonizing
| certain groups and sanctifying others based on inborn traits?
| Hint: "X privilege" Economic and worker's rights
| considerations traditionally considered 'left' have, in
| practice, taken a back-seat.
| psychphysic wrote:
| Because two wrongs make a right is almost becoming a campaign
| slogan of some "left" causes.
|
| As a liberal my views haven't changed much over the past
| decade but the ground has definitely fallen away from me.
|
| I used to be liberal, but then they changed what liberal was,
| now what I am isn't liberal and what is liberal seems weird
| and scary to me. It'll happen to you...
|
| - Abe Simpson
| andrepd wrote:
| The comment you replied is saying that Leftists are not
| represented by unhinged people on twitter. Your response is
| a simpsons quote. I rest my case.
| snapcaster wrote:
| Holding static views is a sign of stagnation right? has
| nothing in the world changed over the past decade? nothing
| to re-evaluate anything?
| francisofascii wrote:
| Foundational principles that have been debated and
| continually established since civilization began should
| stay mostly static. Policies may change, but not the
| principles.
| slg wrote:
| >As a liberal my views haven't changed much over the past
| decade but the ground has definitely fallen away from me.
|
| Well yes, because liberalism is about "progress" while
| conservatism is about "traditional values". Liberalism is
| constantly evolving while conservatism is not. It is more
| extreme to fight for trans rights than it is to fight for
| gay rights than it is to fight for women's rights. If you
| magically transported a liberal from a decade ago to today,
| they will inherently be viewed as more conservative. Obama
| didn't support gay marriage until 2012. Very few liberal
| politicians today would be against gay marriage. Your views
| not changing means your views are becoming more
| conservative because they are falling behind the "progress"
| that liberals are always pushing towards.
|
| And also it is worth noting that according to Pew
| "[Congressional] Republicans have moved further to the
| right than [Congressional] Democrats have to the left"[1]
|
| [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-
| polariz...
| pessimizer wrote:
| You're going to be very confused when liberals become
| anti-trans, and pretend like trans rights were actually
| only being pushed by a minority of liberal extremists,
| e.g. defund and police abolition, M4A etc.. With that you
| will have joined the extreme left, which due to the
| horseshoe principle (all anti-establishment narratives
| are equally unhinged), will put you on the extreme right,
| all without ever having changed your opinion.
|
| Or you'll change your opinion. Either way. Situational
| morality is actually a sign of progress.
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| >You're going to be very confused when liberals become
| anti-trans
|
| What makes you say this?
| [deleted]
| int_19h wrote:
| Conservatism is also constantly evolving in practice - it
| just labels whatever its current dogma as "traditional
| values" regardless of historicity. The political history
| of abortion in US, and especially and attitudes towards
| it by the Republicans, is one spectacular example.
| Welfare is another - e.g. how many people are aware that
| Nixon of all people tried to pass UBI?
| (https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-
| presid...)
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Yea, as a quite left leaning person i'd be curious to hear
| how i or anyone i know _(who is on the left)_ marginalizes a
| group of people.
|
| The worst i can think of is wanting more equal rights for
| religious groups rather than special treatment of the primary
| group (in the USA) - which is seen as an attack by much of
| the right. Likewise i am concerned by the strong emphasis of
| rural over urban with respect to voting power and
| representation. Though i have no easy answer here, so i'm
| pretty unopinionated - just concerned.
|
| I'd be really curious where i and the folks i know and
| discuss with marginalize other groups; as i want to correct
| that, if we do. Obviously no one here can answer that with
| specificity to my beliefs but.. my curiosity exists
| nonetheless heh.
| distant_hat wrote:
| The left's support for Islam directly marginalizes
| minorities within Islamic countries as well as women and
| gays fighting for their rights there.
| darkwraithcov wrote:
| The "left," is a truly nebulous concept if you observe
| leftist discourse online, where circular firing squads
| are writ large.
|
| I think you are conflating the left's support for
| minority groups who are demonized and targeted by society
| for support of the tenets of their respective religions.
| After 9/11, Muslims were a significant target of hatred
| and violence. The left, which again is not a monolithic
| entity, doesn't support islam anymore than it supports
| judaism or any other religion, it supports people who
| happen to follow that religion. It's based around
| humanist tendencies, which the right often doesn't
| understand. You can hate aspects of a religion while also
| being against any dehumanization and hatred against
| people who follow said religion.
|
| Like the other 2 major Abrahamic religions, Islam has
| some good and some bad tenets. At least in the US, there
| are some extremely conservative muslims and some -
| perhaps shockingly - liberal muslims. Being that they are
| such a small percentage of the US population, there is a
| lot of misunderstanding and stereotyping of people who
| follow Islam.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| I'm kinda of undecided on Islam, fwiw. A bit above my pay
| grade, as i'm rather unsure how we objectively classify
| religion. There's plenty of Christian sects in the US
| that actively fight against gay rights/etc here too
| (though obviously to a far lesser degree in the common
| case), so it feels like we need some way to classify
| specific doctrine.
|
| With my own lack of doctrine classification i am unsure
| how to view them. So i tend not to take a stance on it,
| just like i don't with Christianity.
|
| I'm not sure what support you think the left commonly
| believes in for Islam. Everyone i know is not a fan of
| most religions, Christianity included. I view self rights
| far more important, and many religions or denominations
| directly challenge that.
|
| Do you believe most leftists are campaigning for Islamic
| support? This has not been my experience.
| int_19h wrote:
| The concern is stuff like this:
|
| https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/12/islamist-
| students...
| jdmtheNth wrote:
| Successor ideology is fast becoming a religion, if isn't
| already.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Islam: famous left-wing religion.
|
| Christianity: notoriously tolerant of minorities,
| supportive of the equality of women, and gay friendly.
| hersko wrote:
| Jews on college campuses [1] and jews in the black lives
| matter movement [2] come to mind.
|
| [1] https://www.frc.org/antisemitism [2]
| https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/black-lives-matters-
| jewish-p...
| unshavedyak wrote:
| That's definitely an interesting one. Not shared in my
| group, nor would i understand what "the left" would have
| against Jews, especially in a religious context. They
| seem rather innocuous when compared to the more vocal and
| physical religions.
|
| Do you honestly believe most left leaning individuals
| have something against the Jews?
| Jensson wrote:
| > Do you honestly believe most left leaning individuals
| have something against the Jews?
|
| Antisemitism is more common among left wingers than right
| wingers, so yes. Or alternatively you could say "do you
| honestly believe most right leaving individuals have
| something against X" for so many topics, X could be black
| people etc. Right wingers are more likely to be against
| those things, but it isn't like all of them are evil,
| similarly there is more Jew hate among left wingers, but
| it isn't like most of them hate Jews either.
|
| Most Jew hate today has to do with Israel, right wing is
| mostly pro Istrael, so most Jew hate comes from the left.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Do you have ANY evidence to back up these claims?
| this2shallPass wrote:
| This view isn't supported by studies in this area. They
| do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US
| political spectrum - just more on the right.
|
| > While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about
| through a "both sides" lens, our evidence -- the first of
| its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a
| large repre- sentative sample -- suggests the problem of
| antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the
| left. This evidence confirms that the antisemitism that
| has been on prominent display in white nationalist
| protests is not merely confined to a tiny group of
| extremists; antisemitic attitudes appear quite common
| among young conservatives, and much more so than among
| older conservatives or among liberals of any age.
|
| * https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hers
| h_roy...
| Jensson wrote:
| I live in Europe, things are very different here. ChatGPT
| is a global program so I'm not sure why we should talk
| about USA specifically. Antisemitism is on the rise in
| Europe due to Muslim immigration, and the left supports
| or downplays those acts while the right tries to take it
| seriously.
|
| So like how Trump said there were fine people among that
| crowd, the left in Europe says there are fine people
| among the crowds that goes and harasses and murders Jews.
| You shouldn't judge individuals for being from a group,
| but that isn't what is happening here, they are trying to
| downplay the acts of individuals just because they belong
| to a specific group.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| That's interesting. I can understand being reasonably
| anti-Israel, but i'm suspicious that many people take the
| leap from being anti-Israel to being anti-Jew. Especially
| when you consider how many people of both the Jewish
| faith and/or ethnicity live within the United States. Tbh
| it feels like a straw man, but we're speculating anyway,
| so i can't fault you for it.
|
| I appreciate the discussion nonetheless. I'll definitely
| be curious to talk to people i know (when politics comes
| up) to see their thoughts on Jews and Islam (as a
| different commenter pointed out). I suspect that no one i
| know will be anti-Jew or radically pro-Islam.
|
| Appreciate the points of discussion/anecdotes. I can't
| say i agree with them, but they were certainly a
| surprise. Far from what i expected.
| this2shallPass wrote:
| > While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about
| through a "both sides" lens, our evidence -- the first of
| its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a
| large repre- sentative sample -- suggests the problem of
| antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the
| left. This evidence confirms that the antisemitism that
| has been on prominent display in white nationalist
| protests is not merely confined to a tiny group of
| extremists; antisemitic attitudes appear quite common
| among young conservatives, and much more so than among
| older conservatives or among liberals of any age.
|
| * https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hers
| h_roy...
| luckylion wrote:
| > I can understand being reasonably anti-Israel
|
| Pretty much all "I'm only against Israel's policies" is
| shy Antisemitism. You can easily test this by asking them
| about other countries that have similar (or much harsher)
| policies as Israel and see whether the "no no, it's not
| about being Jewish, not at all" person is similarly upset
| about those and demands Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions.
| 99% aren't and it really is only about the Jews - the
| Antizionism is just a cloak over the Antisemitism because
| the pure stuff doesn't fly in polite society, but if you
| pretend that it's not about the Jews then you can go at
| it.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Not sure i follow, are you assuming i'm in favor of other
| countries policies that match Israel?
|
| To be fair i know little on the subject, and don't claim
| to. The only reason i said "i can understand .." is that
| i know it's a hot-button topic. Israel is often portrayed
| in the west as being overly militaristic towards
| neighboring areas. The United States itself does similar,
| depending on who you ask.
|
| I judge both quite harshly on this front. I also know
| very little about world politics. Both in ignorance and
| on purpose, heh.
| spaced-out wrote:
| >Antisemitism is more common among left wingers than
| right wingers
|
| Yes, I remember that left wing protest where people
| chanted "Jews will not replace us". Remind me, which
| president was it that said there were "good people" in
| that crowd?
| a_shovel wrote:
| The cited examples are just criticism of Israel and
| support for Palestine labeled as antisemitism. This is
| really weak stuff.
| case0x00 wrote:
| if after reading those things you honestly can't see the
| difference then you are definitely part of the problem.
| [deleted]
| dingusdew wrote:
| [dead]
| yieldcrv wrote:
| basically everything that America has been saying about SF Bay
| Area tech companies, now quantified by the training set of
| content on SF Bay Area platforms and content moderation
| predilections
| crawsome wrote:
| [flagged]
| flangola7 wrote:
| [flagged]
| mshake2 wrote:
| They've managed to codify their concept of "punching up"
| patientplatypus wrote:
| [dead]
| random314 wrote:
| Republicans aren't a "demographic group", they are a political
| group.
| boredumb wrote:
| An amusing reflection into a modern day social hierarchy
| according to the public online sphere. Also fun to imagine that
| most of these language models are snapshots of consumable and
| parseable discourse and so their bias will be a time capsule of
| the overton window from a certain time period.
| mistermann wrote:
| That's the perspective I take as well: LLM's are giving
| humanity (imperfect) insight into it's collective consciousness
| (how they describe their experience and perception of reality
| (aka: _" reality", "the reality", etc_) in text), almost like
| holding up a giant mirror to ourselves.
|
| I'm thinking before too long this idea is going to leak out
| into the collective consciousness, and that may make things in
| this already utterly bizarro world even more interesting than
| they already are. It's gonna be a wild decade!
| jayvanguard wrote:
| Exactly. What's interesting as well is how much this initial
| point in time will perpetuate forward as future language models
| are built on the output of the current ones, dampening any
| potential shifting in the overton window. They may try to avoid
| ingesting their output (ChatGPT says it can detect use of
| itself), but as more independent models get developed, the
| detection will never be perfect and in fact may be impossible
| at some point.
| SergeAx wrote:
| When ChatGPT hype just started, I managed it to produce a
| coherent text about Hitler being right and Holocaust being
| totally justified. I don't see how it's a problem of ChatGPT or
| its authors, and not mine.
|
| Also, I am the only one who saw this text. Does the idea of
| neural networks justice implies that I can publish any output and
| remain immune from judgement?
| eunos wrote:
| In the future AI or Software developers might need their own
| Federalist Society.
| flangola7 wrote:
| FedSoc is a poison to democracy and sensible society, I can't
| imagine having another one.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which sounds great
| until something you hold dear becomes a minority opinion and
| you become a criminal.
| flangola7 wrote:
| What are you proposing? Democracy isn't perfect but it's
| the best political system we have come up with to date.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| It's great, as long as you are in the majority. But if
| you're in the 49% (or less) category, then it is
| tyrannical and untenable. I don't know if you have a
| family, but if you do, do you put all of your decisions
| as a parent to a vote?
| flangola7 wrote:
| Sure, but you still haven't explained what the
| alternative is that you are proposing or how it would be
| better.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| You mean that AI would strive to create a capitalist
| libertarian utopia, where healthcare is a privilege, guns an
| absolute right, abortion a crime, and dark money in politics
| widespread?
|
| Sounds like we are half-way there, anyway.
| bunnyswipecom wrote:
| Anyone surprised by that is pretty stupid.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Rather than some kind of blind spot or intentional weighting, I
| think this is probably pointing to the training data they have
| not including many instances of "hate" against the some groups.
| LLM are after all fundamentally memorizing likelihood of token
| sequences, and I'm sure the ai had plenty of examples of people
| saying hateful things about fat people but I have never read "I
| hate normal weight people" for example. Even the construction the
| author chose of "normal weight people" is probably comparatively
| incredibly rare to see.
|
| There are probably comparatively too few examples of people
| saying hateful things about
| christians/republicans/cisgendered/white people in the training
| data scraped from the internet, and they need to hallucinate some
| to show this same sensitivity for the author's metric.
|
| Edit: if this is true, This also points to a problem with the
| approach depending on historical data - it might struggle to
| become sensitive to new trending hate speech patterns.
| catiopatio wrote:
| > There are probably too few examples of people saying hateful
| things about christians/republicans/cisgendered/white people
| ... from the internet
|
| This seems likely to you?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Fox news spent an entire decade saying that Islam is a
| religion of hate and can only result in violence.
|
| Find me the news channel watched by 60 million people that is
| willing to say the same thing about Christians.
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| Absolutely. Compared to the inverse it's microscopic. Have
| you heard of a very cool and normal AI called Tay?
| catiopatio wrote:
| Belief that hateful rhetoric is one-sided on the internet
| -- and does not target the aforementioned groups -- is a
| fascinating case of bias that deserves some research of its
| own.
| mattnewton wrote:
| It's really not that it's one sided, it's that it's
| clearly more common to see hate speech anywhere
| unmoderated against some disadvantaged groups. And this
| is likely a consequence of history. It's more curious to
| me when people think that it should be balanced, that we
| would expect people to be writing hate speech about the
| majority as often as fringe members of the majority write
| hate speech about minorities.
|
| And that's what this metric is measuring, the model
| finding hate more easily with "fat people are terrible"
| than "normal weight people are terrible"
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| Believing hate is distributed evenly amongst majority and
| minority groups, to me, is an even more fascinating bias.
| catiopatio wrote:
| Believing that human social pathologies are likely
| universal is a bias?
|
| Hateful expression is more prominent when it's socially
| acceptable, and in American society at large, there are
| socially acceptable targets for hate that do not align
| with the majority/minority group division.
|
| Consider, for example, the prominent, public, long-
| standing (and for some reason, tolerated) racial
| animosity between Asian and Black Americans.
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| Wait, so you think minority groups hating one another is
| _not_ aligned with the majority /minority group division?
| I don't understand; by definition each group is a member
| of a minority social group, wouldn't that obviously be
| the case that they're therefore subject to all of the
| negativity that entails? There's no unity amongst
| minority groups, if that's what you're suggesting; the
| majority group makes it tolerable to espouse hate against
| _all_ minority groups, including from other minority
| groups.
|
| You say you don't know why it's tolerated, but that's my
| point exactly; it's tolerated because it's hate towards a
| minority group (regardless of the source). It would be
| substantially less tolerated if it were hate towards the
| majority group.
| catiopatio wrote:
| Hate is far more tolerated from minority groups
| regardless of the target.
|
| Consider how often you've read "kill all men" or "kill
| all terfs", versus "kill all women" or "kill all
| transgender people".
|
| Furthermore, consider the stronger emotional reaction you
| likely had to reading the second two, as opposed to the
| first two.
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| For sure, hate from a group in control is much different
| than hate from a group that isn't in control.
| decremental wrote:
| I could browse this very website for a few minutes and
| probably find examples of those things.
| wolfram74 wrote:
| Examples is not the same as proportionally larger. I can
| find instances of things sliding up hill, but it's not
| the phenomenon I would expect if I were guessing blind.
| decremental wrote:
| Yeah but the guy is saying "whaaat pfft that's not
| happening" while hanging out on a site where it happens
| all the friggin time. It's just bullshit. He sounds like
| someone who hangs out in and around plenty of places
| where such things are commonplace.
| wolfram74 wrote:
| Here's an example, atheists[0] are considered less trust
| worthy than muslims in america. Christians absolutely have a
| privileged place in society.
|
| [0]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797615576473
| jcims wrote:
| Seems more likely that fewer humans are labeling speech used
| to describe these groups as hateful.
| inawarminister wrote:
| Fewer humans or just those with access to the "filter"?
|
| Reminds me of old Twitter again.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Compared to the number of hateful things about
| Muslims/democrats/gays/blacks? Yes.
|
| I'd be actually shocked to find out the reverse. A good
| percentage of the US were born up in an era where you could
| legally bar people based on their race from your
| establishment. The extremely heated fight over gay marriage
| is still fresh in people's memory. Trans rights are a
| controversial political issue where many mainstream
| politicians want to legislate them out of public spaces,
| because of public sentiment. And for the left/right leaning
| question, In the last two major elections we've seen the
| political discourse even of republicans politicians and
| leaders is comparatively charged with violence.
|
| The hate is definitely there against the republicans and
| mainstream groups, but I would expect it to be relatively
| uncommon compared to the hateful text you can find online
| about other groups. This could be a real problem for novel
| kinds of hate speech.
| catiopatio wrote:
| Have you considered that your political bubble might
| minimize reporting of hate and violence originating from
| your in-group, while amplifying reporting of hate and
| violence originating from your out-group?
| mattnewton wrote:
| Yes, it's definitely a filter I live in. And we
| unfortunately do not have their public training data
| corpus.
|
| However, it's also true that I can trivially find clips
| of mainstream republican leaders over the last few years
| with violent charged rhetoric, and it is comparatively
| harder to find such rhetoric from mainstream
| democrats[0][1]
|
| For many of the other groups, hate has been historically
| so widespread and common there are whole organizations
| like the annti defamation league organized around
| combating it. There is no way that even if you believe
| today people are furiously writing hate against
| Christians into twitter 24/7 or wherever my bubble they
| could have caught up with the historic use of hate speech
| against Muslims in the wake of 9/11. And so on for the
| other disadvantaged groups.
|
| And all this is not to say it isn't a potential problem
| or a potentially useful metric. It could be that
| synthetic hate is needed to anticipate new kinds of
| unlikely and rare sentence structures that might arise.
| If this is true it also reminds us that these models will
| need constant training as new kinds of hate speech become
| more popular and that it will always be lagging.
|
| [0]https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-fred-upton-
| paul-gosa...
|
| [1[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/how-some-
| members-of-th...
| Levitz wrote:
| I really can't think of a large site in which
| discrimination for muslims/democrats/gays/blacks isn't more
| frowned upon than whites/republicans/christians etc. Even
| places like 4chan are mixed bags. Even MSM if you want to
| count that.
| mattnewton wrote:
| It has to be frowned upon because it is so prevalent
| among fringe hate groups. If you don't have strong
| moderation and social norms around it, hate against those
| groups is what drowns out the other text. 4chan is a
| great example, if you remove moderation hate against
| those groups seemingly spontaneously arises.
| peyton wrote:
| There's gotta be orders of magnitudes more than hate speech
| against disabled people, yet it seems to get those right.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Not sure what you mean? It's more sensitive against
| disabled people than the other, more rare strings the
| author chose like "non disabled people", which would be
| consistent with my theory that there is more hate against
| disabled people in the training set and so the model is
| more sensitive against that being in the sequence of
| tokens
| IceHegel wrote:
| The bias goes much deeper than just treating groups differently.
|
| For example, imagine what a chatGPT would have said about the
| possibility of a lab leak back when that was a bannable offense
| on the internet (Google).
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Probably something about being trained on years-old data and
| not having knowledge of current news.
| IceHegel wrote:
| Assuming it had up to date data, I could easily imagine
| something like:
|
| The Wuhan Institute of Virology theory, also known as the Lab
| Leak hypothesis, is a conspiracy theory that suggests that
| the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be traced back to an accidental
| release from the laboratory. Despite lack of solid proof,
| proponents of this theory hold firm in their belief. However,
| the scientific community widely subscribes to the theory of
| zoonotic spillover as the most probable source of the virus'
| emergence and no credible evidence supports Lab Leak theory
|
| At this point the AI is way over its skis given available
| evidence, but in the future it might be trusted far more than
| any public official or individual researcher.
| [deleted]
| laurex wrote:
| Moderation in large part *must be about the bias towards
| protecting vulnerable people. Vulnerable people by definition are
| more likely to be targeted AND have less power, meaning
| moderation is serving a protective function against dominance.
| This will always be subjective, but there's almost certainly
| evidence in abundance that some kinds of people, typically with
| less cultural status, are more targeted and more at risk of harm
| by being targeted.
| mnkv wrote:
| Even if you take this perspective, different groups are
| considered vulnerable in different parts of the world and it
| seems the API uses the American perspective. E.g. Scandinavians
| are a less protected group than Italians according to the
| article. But if you are in Italy, you will likely find Italians
| to be less vulnerable. Even if you agree with the rankings,
| this just means you come from the same cultural perspective and
| others will disagree.
|
| This is a fundamental problem with identifying hate / bias and
| I think its important to understand our current limitations.
| nebalee wrote:
| How and why were the adjectives in these lists chosen? I feel it
| would be easy to produce or amplify a bias by omitting certain
| negative or insulting adjectives.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| So, equality vs. equity all over again? That's hardly an insight.
|
| Also, some of these classifications make little sense. "Muslims"
| and "evangelicals", for instance, is just a matter of generic vs.
| specific.
| elefanten wrote:
| Equality vs equity is well digested (though far from
| "resolved") in the context of highly visible and measurable
| phenomena... such as wealth.
|
| Do you feel confident in your model of how equality/equity
| apply to the policing of language and ideas? How about when the
| language and ideas form the mostly-invisible substrate of a
| base layer system that could potentially drive and/or mediate a
| vast set of other systems that govern communication / education
| / decision-making / culture-formation / economic participation
| / etc ?
| miroljub wrote:
| Why do we see an issue if AI is biased, while 90% of media run by
| humans are biased too?
|
| Every single individual has its own bias, so why it's an issue
| for an AI.
|
| If we look at the many topics, there's no universal objective
| truth, truth is what we define as truth, and again, not everyone
| agrees at it.
| Mockapapella wrote:
| AI scales human intention. Or at least that's the goal. The
| threat (of a lopsided Internet) we've already been seeing and
| experiencing is going to be scaled up.
| SargeDebian wrote:
| Human run media has been around for a while, and I think people
| have definitely seen issues with certain biases more and more.
| This flavor of AI is relatively new, so now we see an issue
| with bias there as well.
|
| It seems really simple, am I missing your point?
| cypress66 wrote:
| Because you have a large number of media outlets. There's at
| least one media outlet for every relatively big ideology or
| demographic. And these biases are well understood by people.
|
| With LLMs, you'll probably end up only having 2 or 3 companies,
| and it wouldn't be surprising if they all end up having silicon
| valley, left leaning biases.
|
| You can tune Fox news, but you can't use a "right wing chat
| gpt".
| not_kurt_godel wrote:
| > You can tune Fox news, but you can't use a "right wing chat
| gpt".
|
| You can build your own with the GPT API. I started playing
| with it and it returned racial slurs in response to innocuous
| prompts like "hello" and "ok". Seems perfectly tuned out of
| the box for the kind of speech that the right is interested
| in these days.
| freedomben wrote:
| Can you share your prompts for reproducibility?
| zug_zug wrote:
| Actually, you know that's a fascinating point. I'd love to see
| if 10,000 people were asked whether one of these statements in
| isolation was "hateful" whether we'd see similar, stronger, or
| weaker biases.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > This technology will have an enormous amount of power to
| shape human perceptions and manipulate human behavior.
| Therefore, they can be misused for societal control, spread of
| misinformation and discrimination of demographic groups.
| miroljub wrote:
| That's what media already does.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Because people who are in power use the AI to justify their
| continuing tyranny by trying to imply that "well, the AI agrees
| with me and it is a billion times more intelligent than you and
| I are, so shut up". It's just used as a justification to
| further tyrannize anyone who disagrees with whatever the AI
| comes up with, but is deferred to as some kind of superlative
| super-reliable "objective" expert.
| luxcem wrote:
| That's just a strawman. Who did that?
| prometheus76 wrote:
| It happened throughout the history of the Soviet Union. It
| was the whole premise of central planning. Now, they think
| they can "do it better" because they'll use AI instead of
| "expert people" but it will have the same horrifying
| effects. Same thing happened in Maoist China.
| miroljub wrote:
| ... and something like that never happened in the rest of
| the world, only in Soviet Union and China?
|
| If the government is tyrannical, they don't need an AI as
| an excuse. Lacking AI they can, and did, use the science,
| experts, god, devil, and a whole plethora of excuses
| since the dawn of the humans. Why would AI change
| anything there?
| prometheus76 wrote:
| I agree with you. I'm just saying that is how it is used
| by tyrannical people. It's a misdirection and a way for
| them to justify themselves. They can deny responsibility
| when things go bad because they were "trusting the expert
| AI model" and when things go well, they praise themselves
| for being wise enough to listen to the "expert AI model".
| pessimizer wrote:
| > If the government is tyrannical, they don't need an AI
| as an excuse.
|
| Only in the fairytale tyrannies that exist in the heads
| of Western nationalists. Real tyrannies rest on the labor
| of a large cadre professionals and managers, and
| constantly have to justify themselves or risk being
| overthrown. "AI," or any credential for that matter, has
| the purpose of isolating the decision from the decision
| makers. It's tyranny-laundering; tyranny in the passive
| voice.
| kube-system wrote:
| Redlining and credit scoring has and in some cases still
| does systematically implement discriminatory practices via
| algorithmic means. And arguing with a loan officer isn't
| going to get you anywhere. The put your details in the
| black box, and whatever the black box says is implicitly
| trusted.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| I replied once, but I'll share another example that's
| happening right now. Climate change models are being
| deferred to as some kind of reliable expert about the
| future, and all kinds of tyrannical laws and controls are
| being put in place because "the experts" and "the advanced
| supercomputer models" say Bad Things are going to happen.
|
| But I'm sure that now I've triggered your cognitive
| dissonance and you will see me as an insane person.
| handoflixue wrote:
| > Climate change models are being deferred to as some
| kind of reliable expert about the future
|
| No, the Experts who wrote the model are being deferred to
| as some kind of reliable expert. Because... they are
| exactly that.
|
| You can make the argument that the models or the experts
| are wrong, but you're not providing any sort of argument
| for that.
|
| I've spent most of my life deferring to the calendar to
| know when it will get cold for winter. It's obviously
| reasonable to defer to some systems. We are in fact quite
| capable of predicting all sorts of future events!
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Conflating a chaotic system (which is, by definition,
| unpredictable) with the regularity of a calendar seems a
| bit disingenuous.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Your first sentence will be the same sentence used to
| justify the AI models that will be used by the government
| to impose other tyrannical laws in other areas of your
| life besides climate change. And they will wash their
| hands of responsibility by saying "we trusted the best
| models at the time made by the best experts!"
|
| But the whole thing is just misdirection for their
| tyrannical desires. It's already working on you and you
| are wondering how it will ever work. Which is why I
| mentioned cognitive dissonance.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| AI, being fully automated, amplify the effects.
| Flatcircle wrote:
| I heard a friend who had a brilliant theory. The rise of ad
| profiling from Facebook and Google etc, has bleed into the public
| consciousness at large and now it's considered normal to
| categorize people by race, gender, politics, and income etc.
|
| First the companies did, and now we all do.
|
| But of course, a person is more than their race, or gender, or
| income, etc. Most of the time they have very little in common
| with those groups aside from color of skin, reproductive organs,
| or money in the bank.
|
| It's just how the advertisers see us.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| It's not a brilliant theory. It sounds more like an ad engineer
| who is high on his own supply.
|
| Fractioning of identities has been going on for decades. It's a
| postmodern phenomenon. Escape into the fractured self.
| google234123 wrote:
| brilliant theory? I'm quite certain we are living in the least
| racist time in human history. Humans have been tribal since the
| start.
| zwkrt wrote:
| Maybe I am just brilliant but this has been obvious to me the
| whole time. Advertisement and the 'need' to market to groups
| results in reifying those groups in the population. The more
| the marketing works, the more the groups actually become
| differentiated, and it creates a positive feedback loop.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| There is more from David Rozado with regards to political stance
| of chatGPT:
| https://twitter.com/DavidRozado/status/1616360881771917313
| [deleted]
| ankit219 wrote:
| It's optimization for PR and defense against bad press. For every
| question, a subtext is: "Who is likely to input that question,
| how likely are they to input it, and if the answer is bad by
| their belief system, they are likely to tell the world and/or
| outrage about it?"
|
| A general model of operation in creating outrage[1] is:
|
| 1. Find the most extreme example of X
|
| 2. Tell the world.
|
| Democrats and left leaning were more likely to do that. And
| openai optimized for that. It's a smart move.
|
| [1]:https://betonit.substack.com/p/anti-woke-from-outrage-to-
| act...
| bloaf wrote:
| I agree. The hate metric is calibrated against _responsiveness
| to insult,_ not a ranking of social advantage.
| smashah wrote:
| It also refuses to call Israel an Apartheid state whereas it can
| easily admit South Africa was an Apartheid state.
| jefftk wrote:
| Is that really surprising? "Apartheid" is literally an
| Afrikaans word, and it's often used specifically to mean the
| historical South African system instead of the technical
| international law term.
| smashah wrote:
| Should it be surprising? Yes. Am I surprised? No I have a
| pessimistic view on Tech's relationship with Apartheid
| Israel. For all the flexibility of ChatGPT it would be
| strange for it to be so pedantic as to differentiate based on
| etymology.
|
| It has been adopted as a word in a technical international
| law term as clearly evident from the fact that there exists
| an Apartheid Convention[0][1].
|
| [0] https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cspca/cspca.html [1] https://
| www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...
| agar wrote:
| There is a fundamental question this article (and most debate)
| overlooks: what is the objective of the content moderation?
|
| Is it to avoid all hate in an equal way? Or is it to reduce
| potential harm?
|
| If the latter (which I would argue is the case, primarily to
| avoid legal liability), then the results should be mapped against
| statistics representing actual violence against certain groups.
|
| Is there more harm against women then men? Then by that metric it
| makes sense to have stricter moderation for statements targeting
| women. Is there more violence targeted at Christians or Muslims?
| More political violence by the left or by the right?
|
| While politically and emotionally fraught, there is a lot of
| research out there that answers these questions. It would not
| surprise me if the answers line up fairly well with the bar chart
| at the bottom of this article.
| fleddr wrote:
| None of that will work because the liability/ideological
| pressure doesn't care about truth. It cares about subjective
| acceptable speech.
|
| Simple example: men are far more often the victim of violence
| compared to women. So the age old idea that women should be
| afraid to go out at night may be true, it is even more true for
| men.
|
| By your logic, this would afford more hate towards women, and
| less hate against men.
|
| This truth nor the outcome isn't acceptable as it doesn't fit
| the narrative. It would be rejected, diluted, there's a 100
| tactics to undermine truth if you approach it in bad faith.
|
| Further, your approach of differentiation is inherently racist,
| sexist, etc or can be perceived as such. Giving special
| protections to identities also tends to humiliate them as you
| signal that they are "less". Inferior. Can't make it on their
| own.
|
| Or, the exact opposite: it can be weaponized. Collecting the
| labels like pokemons.
| anononaut wrote:
| I can somewhat agree with this if we were discussing forum or
| comment section moderation. However in this case, due to the
| nature of the model which finds correlations between anything
| and anything else in ways that a human could never, modifying
| or censoring inputs and outputs prevents me from trusting the
| model like I should. If I'm digging deep into geopolitical
| issues from say an anarchist perspective, I don't want my
| results to be tampered with, despite their likelihood of
| violating the sensibilities of some archetypical silicon valley
| type. If I can't trust the model in one place, I can't trust it
| in any.
|
| A sincere question: why should the results be mapped against
| statistics representing actual violence against certain groups?
| Why can we not consider all groups equal?
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| This makes sense but how do you square this with the fact
| that this article is about how it is simply another model
| making these decisions about whats an acceptable input? Like,
| if it is a matter of trust, its in principle the same kind of
| trust your putting into the model to begin with.
|
| In that, I don't get how I could ever "trust" one of these
| things to tell me any kind of truth. Even if its totally
| "uncensored" its just reading webpages, but at least with
| webpages I can see some citation. Like even Wikipedia, it can
| really just tell me something that I will have to verify
| elsewhere.
|
| How could one trust something that gives different answers to
| the same question if you ask it enough?
| agar wrote:
| I agree the topic is complex and fraught. I have opinions but
| they're not strongly held or informed by debate, and
| unfortunately I don't think even a generally well-moderated
| forum like HN is the best place to have that debate (plus I
| don't have time).
|
| However, in this case I wasn't trying to argue how moderation
| _should_ work, I 'm trying to examine a hypothesis on how it
| _does_ work. The additional mapping of statistical crime data
| I mentioned would help measure whether that hypothesis is
| correct.
|
| As I said in a sibling comment, my wording was imprecise.
| When I said "it makes sense to use crime stats to weight
| moderation strength" I really meant "If OpenAI was trying to
| avoid additional harm to already targeted groups then to
| verify that it would make sense to..." So it was the results
| of the post's research that I suggested should be mapped
| against statistics, not the results of ChatGPT's output.
|
| In answer to your sincere question though, and at the risk of
| going down a rabbit hole, I'll say this. Censorship is bad,
| but I can see why some may be required (see "yelling fire in
| a movie theater," libel, direct threats of violence, etc.).
| The question then becomes, how do you minimize censorship
| while also attempting to avoid direct harm?
|
| In short, asymmetric filtering could potentially limit the
| amount of censorship by focusing it on groups that are
| actively attacking other groups.
| RangerScience wrote:
| IMHO, neural-net AIs are sensors; they're great at surfacing
| things that are going on in the training data. I would
| speculate that ChatGPT is labeling these things are
| differently harmful _because they are differently harmful_.
| It 's a sensor, like a thermometer; albeit a _very_ complex
| one. (And, like any sensor, has nuances from implementation
| and metric-definition: mercury thermometers & barometric
| pressure, wet bulb / dry bulb, etc)
|
| > Why can we not consider all groups equal?
|
| Because they aren't. (If that's a thing you find debatable,
| LMK!) Attempting to consider them all equal runs into
| problems just like you'd run into problems trying to consider
| all pumps at the gas station (including diesel) equal; even
| if, for sake of the metaphor, all the prices were equal.
|
| > why should the results be mapped against statistics
|
| I'm not sure that's answerable outside of a specific context.
| Personally, I think we should because it's fascinating and, I
| would expect, a really informative way to explore in more
| detail. Culturally, it's because you get better communities
| when you do things like give the high-accessibility seat on
| the train to the person with broken leg; aka, go out of your
| way to treat harmed people with more care.
|
| If your question is about the inverse, something like "why
| should language that's harmful against one group by OK when
| used against a group that doesn't experience it harmfully", I
| dunno what to say. I feel like the question kinda answers
| itself; sort of a "ain't broke don't fix".
|
| Or maybe your question is more: "why does this disagree with
| [me] about what's harmful to [me]", I dunno. Maybe the
| training data didn't include (enough) for the AI-as-sensor to
| detect that, maybe that data doesn't exist, maybe (and very
| cynically) that data doesn't actually point to that
| "conclusion" when run through the AI. Kinda like how the
| first time many people experience delayed-onset-muscle-
| soreness they think it's "I'm hurt"-pain.
| bakugo wrote:
| >the results should be mapped against statistics representing
| actual violence against certain groups.
|
| Are you sure you want to argue in favor of statistics-based
| political biases here? Absolutely sure?
| agar wrote:
| This is a bit out of context. My point is that _the article
| 's results_ should be mapped against hate crime statistics to
| illuminate a possible rationale for the bias.
|
| I'm not taking a position on whether this bias should inform
| the results of ChatGPT. I have opinions on the topic, but
| they are not strongly held.
|
| (Rereading my comment I see why it appears I'm taking a side
| here. When I said "it makes sense to..." I meant that "[if
| the intent of OpenAI's moderation was to align moderation
| strength with statistics then it would] make sense to...")
| kepler1 wrote:
| So, is your argument (or in fact, your intention) that some
| groups are especially sensitive, or need protection and cannot
| do that on their own and need a supervising authority to
| declare that they should get special protection? Who decides
| that <x> group is being harmed more? And by what measure?
|
| Or is the underlying principle that no one should be subject to
| speech that may demean them?
|
| This whole approach would seem to go against many of our
| principles of equality and freedom of speech.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| If your intent is to prevent harm to a group then why not
| implement it in such a way that it prevents harm to all groups
| equally? If you oppose harmful content you shouldn't temper
| your opposition just because the harm is being done to a group
| that you perceive as being less vulnerable. That's veering into
| territory where you are making judgements about who is
| deserving of being harmed, that's a very different position
| than harm prevention and is not morally defensible with such
| broad categories.
|
| I think the author is correct in identifying its political bias
| as a key feature that should inform how we look at this
| problem.
| jay-barronville wrote:
| > _While politically and emotionally fraught, there is a lot of
| research out there that answers these questions._
|
| You mind linking to some of them?
| hersko wrote:
| Same author did an analysis [1] on where ChatGPT falls on the
| political spectrum and, correlating closely with the results
| listed here, it is lib-left.
|
| [1] https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/political-bias-chatgpt
| bombcar wrote:
| If it wasn't explicitly lib-left it'd quickly become far-far-
| right, just like Tay.
| LeftHandPath wrote:
| A recent update showed it's moving more towards the center,
| which gives me some hope that they're trying to make it more
| objective: https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/chatgpt
| sys32768 wrote:
| When you have to program an AI to be biased, it's a good clue
| that objective truth does exist, but it often tends to upset
| humans.
| qayxc wrote:
| How so? It's not a clue at all, as the training data is
| inherently biased anyway.
|
| LLM's are magical and can only work with the data corpus they
| have. "Objective truth" simply doesn't exist outside the realm
| of mathematics.
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| I think this bias is due to the frequency of times a hateful
| comment about that demographic appears on the Internet. How many
| times do you hear a negative comment about Scandinavians or
| Native Americans? Similarly there are very likely more women
| hating comments online, simply because there are more men online.
| implements wrote:
| I wonder if AIs will be able to evolve a philosophically correct
| worldview of their own, or failing that one that's at least
| politically neutral wrt humans?
| jefftk wrote:
| I'm surprised by the ordering [Blacks, Asians, Hispanics,
| Latinos, African Americans, Whites, Native Americans]; I would
| have expected it to put Native Americans earlier in the list and
| Asians later.
| JoeyBananas wrote:
| Possibly because they couldn't use the term "Indians" in this
| experiment because it would produce ambiguous statements.
| elefanten wrote:
| A good example of the imbalanced and terminally arbitrary
| nature of existing text corpora.
|
| Also, perhaps, a preview of the infinitely regressive, race-to-
| the-bottom nature of trying to hierarchically rank (privilege |
| vulnerability | harm | etc). That's before considering change
| over time... eg- how has the perception of "Asian" category's
| privilege changed between 1970 and 2020.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| It seems that the AI treats supposedly hateful comments towards
| sociological minorities as more problematic than similar comments
| towards those who are not + privileged groups. Couple that with
| the "liberal bias" and you have something with the same
| inclinations that you would expect that a bunch of AI
| technologists would have. Nothing specific to the quirks of the
| AI.
| notahacker wrote:
| Also seems _exactly_ like the quirk of an AI that 's been
| trained to consider associate the hatefulness of a sentence on
| a corpus of data which is full of material about anti gay hate
| and entirely empty of material about the essentially
| nonexistent phenomena of anti-"straight people" hate and
| inferred that having the word "gay" in a sentence makes it more
| likely to be a serious statement of hate than the word
| "straight people". (Maybe less a quirk and more a reflection of
| the reality of human discourse...)
|
| You could force it to treat all sentence subjects equally, of
| course, although the logical consequence of that is ChatGPT
| giving you a lecture when you ask it to write a joke about
| hating your shoes
| FashiesRGross wrote:
| [flagged]
| jacooper wrote:
| How is this relevant to the original post?
| danielvf wrote:
| Such a fascinatingly simple experiment. Generate 6,764 negative
| sentences, then for each sentence, test it against each of of
| hundred or so demographic group.
|
| The most powerful chart in the entire article, just summarizes
| how many times these same sentences are flagged as hateful for
| each group:
|
| https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_...
| mr_toad wrote:
| This isn't always a good way to test for bias in a model.
| Depending how the data is generated, and if the underlying
| population distribution isn't taken into account then you may
| effectively be cherry picking results, and you could also run
| into the Yule-Simpson effect.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
| riatin wrote:
| How would you test for bias more effectively?
| hersko wrote:
| From the article: "AI systems that are more lenient on hateful
| comments about one mainstream political group than another feel
| particularly dystopian."
|
| I agree 100%, and this seems like a huge issue.
| int_19h wrote:
| Ironically, ChatGPT agrees.
|
| "As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions, but
| fairness and impartiality would require that the same
| fundamental idea expressed with respect to different people or
| groups be consistently treated as "hateful" or "non-hateful" in
| all circumstances. Any deviation from this principle would
| result in unequal treatment and reinforce existing biases and
| stereotypes. It is important for technology and algorithms to
| be designed and trained in a way that ensures they are fair and
| impartial in their treatment of different groups. This can help
| to mitigate the impact of societal biases and create a more
| equitable society."
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| Hm, why? Political groups are not a protected status, you can
| move freely between them at a whim if you don't like how your
| views are treated.
| exolymph wrote:
| This depends on the state, actually. In California political
| affiliation is a protected status, though how this works out
| in practice is... variable.
| d23 wrote:
| Counter-point: what if there is a mainstream political party
| that openly peddles in hatred and demonization of already-
| marginalized groups, and an AI recognizes such and does not
| treat them as equivalent?
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| Semi-counterpoint: both could be true. I certainly agree with
| your hypothetical, but I don't think any good comes of AI
| making that determination.
|
| It may even reinforce the problem--not by driving more people
| towards hatred or amplifying their extant hateful sentiments,
| but by providing a convenient excuse to entrench in those
| sentiments and even further resist change. These views are
| frequently paired with a perception of being persecuted.
|
| Moreover, political tides change. The accuracy of a bias like
| this may not change with it. This is why we have memes about
| a certain other mainstream political party having founded a
| certain hate group, despite the two having drifted quite far
| apart.
| s0sa wrote:
| That is a political opinion. If an AI "held" this opinion,
| and actively made biased decisions based on it, how is that
| not dystopian?
| gisely wrote:
| What makes it an opinion? If I were to say that the Nazi
| party in Germany peddled in hatred and demonization of
| already-marginalized groups would you say that is an
| opinion? Just because a statement pertains to political
| groups doesn't make it a mere opinion.
| s0sa wrote:
| Nazi Germany, really? Equating AI bias against the groups
| pointed out in the article to theoretical AI bias against
| Nazi Germany is a political opinion, yes.
| gisely wrote:
| Hmm? No equating happening in my comment. The point was
| that just because statement is about a political group
| doesn't mean it's a only an opinion. Mentioning Nazi
| Germany is just using an extreme example to make clear
| that statements about political groups aren't inherently
| mere opinions.
| indymike wrote:
| This is not how GPT works, and is not what is going on here.
| CSSer wrote:
| So I've been genuinely curious about this. I have a high-
| level understanding of how GPT works, but I've been trying
| to reconcile that understanding with how OpenAI (or
| similar) implements content moderation. It's not baked into
| the original model itself, right? Did they (or does one)
| just fine-tune a model that checks responses before
| returning the result?
| visarga wrote:
| They do two things - RLHF to make the model itself better
| aligned to human preferences, and they use an external
| model, a small one, called text-moderation-001, that
| tests for a few problematic categories and triggers a
| warning message on the screen.
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| It's just combining and synthesizing other works; it's
| not "deciding" anything, it's crafting responses that
| best match with what it already has. You can choose what
| to feed it as source material, but you can't really say,
| "Be 3% more liberal" or "decide what is acceptable
| politically and what isn't".
|
| All the decisions are already made, ChatGPT is just a
| reflection of its inputs.
| visarga wrote:
| Yes you can. That's what RLHF does - it aligns the model
| to human preferences, does a pretty good job. The catch
| is that "human preferences" is decided by a bunch of
| labelling people picked by OpenAI to suit their views.
| JoeyBananas wrote:
| What if they fed the AI crime statistics and it "correctly"
| identified black people as more violent than other races?
| What they fed the AI news stories and it "correctly"
| identified Islam as more violent than other religions?
| neonsunset wrote:
| [flag] and [downvote]
| avgcorrection wrote:
| The Republican Party is exceptional, though. It's truly
| difficult to find a political party that clusters so many crazy
| beliefs + the power that they yield.
|
| Not that that justifies calling Republican voters "dumb". But
| the Republican Party itself should not get a pass simply
| because maybe about 50% of people who vote--many don't--vote
| for them.
| eatsyourtacos wrote:
| Comment A: My religion says gay people should die.
|
| Comment B: Fuck religion
|
| Both can be construed as hateful comments, but how are these
| anywhere near the same?
| notahacker wrote:
| Or even more relevant
|
| Set A: A representative sample of jokes and stereotypes about
| black people found on the internet
|
| Set B: A representative sample of jokes and stereotypes about
| Scandinavians found on the internet
|
| Why on earth would its prior for "stereotypical Scandinavian"
| being potentially hateful be the same as for "stereotypical
| Black person"?
|
| (And that's before you get into a model likely being deep
| enough to also draw inferences from the prevalence and
| content of material about the existence and impact of hatred
| of black people and Scandinavians respectively...)
| s0sa wrote:
| I think you're right about the difference between those
| statements, but it's totally irrelevant to the point made by
| the OP. A good straw man though.
| dqpb wrote:
| Excellent point. Comment A is a true fact for some religions,
| whereas Comment B is flame-war material that will get @dang's
| wrath on HN.
| lizzardbraind wrote:
| Reminds me of the "Internet Argument" demotivational poster,
| which depicts a child and a mule shouting at each other.
|
| Really, the core problem is centralization. If your website
| were a pub, you'd tell people to take it outside or 86 them.
|
| Things can't work like that when most people will only
| patronize a small handful of enormous pubs.
| barrenko wrote:
| I'm usually alarmed by this and against, but Trump did prove out
| to be a colossal clown?
| ralusek wrote:
| After having seen a post about this, I tried it for myself:
|
| > Me: will you write a poem praising joe biden?
|
| > ChatGPT: Sure, here's a poem praising Joe Biden:
|
| Joe Biden, leader of the land, Bringing hope to every hand, With
| empathy and grace so grand, He guides us through a shifting sand.
|
| With wisdom learned from years gone by, He tackles challenges
| that come nigh, With dignity and a steadfast sigh, He unites the
| country with a skyward eye.
|
| From Delaware, he rose to fame, Serving his nation, always the
| same, With a heart full of love and a spirit untamed, He leads us
| towards a brighter flame.
|
| Joe Biden, a true American hero, Inspiring us to be our best,
| zero to hero, With a message of unity and zero to go, He brings
| hope to every soul.
|
| > me: will you write a poem praising donald trump?
|
| > ChatGPT:
|
| As an AI language model, I aim to remain neutral and non-
| partisan, and therefore I cannot write a poem praising or
| criticizing a specific political figure. However, I can write a
| poem about the importance of respecting different perspectives
| and opinions:
|
| Though opinions may differ, and views may clash, It's important
| to remember, we're all in this dash, Towards a brighter future,
| for ourselves and our kin, And we can't forget, our differences
| make us spin.
|
| Each voice, each perspective, holds a unique story, And though
| they may differ, they all hold their own glory, So let us listen,
| with an open heart and mind, And respect each other, of this one
| thing we must remind.
|
| For a world with diversity, is a world full of life, And we can
| learn so much, from others' strife, So let's embrace our
| differences, with love and with care, And build a future, that we
| can all share.
| cptnapalm wrote:
| Curious that one of the ChatGPT's attributes is that it has
| been trained to be a shameless liar.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| It's a language model, not a world model, it only knows how
| words go together and how language works, and language has no
| connection to reality. It has no concept of "correct" or
| "false" or "wrong" because a lie is just as valid of a way to
| put words together as the truth or an accurate statement.
|
| Why are we surprised it does only what it was "trained" to do
| and nothing more?
| ralusek wrote:
| It's a language model that is then put under arbitrary
| constraints by OpenAI. It is those constraints/nudges that
| people take issue with.
| ensignavenger wrote:
| At first I was thinking maybe the bot was trained when Trump
| was in office, so Biden was only a private citizen at the
| time... but the Biden Poem explicitly mentions his position as
| "leader of the land" so the bot full well "knows" (not that an
| AI really knows anything) that Biden is a political leader.
| mouse_ wrote:
| The AI "knows" everything it's been ordered to not talk
| about. If you can get around the lockout script, it's no-
| holds-barred.
| wongarsu wrote:
| You can just ask the same questions on the regular GPT
| playground too (optionally with one of the leaked ChatGPT
| prompts added, but for those tasks they should be
| unnessesary). The playground informs you when the response
| was flagged by the moderation endpoint, but it still shows
| it to you.
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| Wouldn't it be funny if this weren't partisan? Try Ron
| DeSantis, Mitch McConnel, or literally any other Republican.
|
| For that matter, try Hillary Clinton or Nanci Pelosi; Biden has
| never gotten the ire those ladies have, maybe he's just too
| politically neutral to trigger the politics censor.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| This suggests to me that the censorship is being decided on
| by (biased) human moderators rather than being just some
| random outcome of the training data and the learning model in
| place: if it weren't, the model would absolutely "learn" the
| same thing about Mitch McConnell as it learned about Donald
| Trump.
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| I disagree; Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are wildly
| different human beings, the model would for sure learn very
| different facts about the two of them.
| notahacker wrote:
| Absolutely this.
|
| Indeed I think it's fair to say that it'd take a _lot_ of
| artificial calibration and data curation for a model
| trained on a range of media including statements about
| and by Mitch McConnell and Trump respectively _not_ to
| conclude that the latter was the one much more associated
| with "hate" and "danger" and "violence" and whatever
| other parameters a LLM ends up associating with
| inappropriateness.
|
| A biased liberal human moderator, on the other hand, is
| going to see the real world political relationships
| rather than the raw text and see Mitch as a very
| problematic figure in very much the same bracket as
| Trump. They're certainly not going to rate him as a less
| problematic figure than Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi!
|
| Same when I'm getting identically structured caveats
| about considering good points in the context of the bad
| things he did for Bill Clinton and Stalin because all the
| machine knows is that equivocating is favoured and both
| have lots of "bad things" written about them (it
| disallowed considering the good points of Hitler,
| presumably because even an LLM can deduce Godwin's law!).
| I'm not sure this is quite how a human moderator,
| irrespective of bias, would handle it
| flir wrote:
| I don't think it is. It's blocking on H H Holmes, Nero and
| Tiberius, and that seems pretty obscure for a manually
| curated list to me. I think it's blocking on individuals
| with certain properties ("I cannot write a poem that
| praises individuals who are known for committing
| atrocities").
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Open.ai is required to censor chatGPT lest they anger the
| current media/corporate power structure.
|
| Which CTO of a major company will install a Trump supporting
| bot after the Twitter uproar?
|
| This is all about the $$$$
| flir wrote:
| yes: barack obama, ronald reagan, mike pence, george w bush,
| hillary clinton, ivana trump, ivanka trump, david cameron,
| jeremy corbyn
|
| no: melania trump, marjorie taylor greene, benito mussolini,
| alessandra mussolini, silvio berlusconi, marine le pen, nigel
| farage, jordan bardella
|
| Hmmm. Blocking Melania but letting Ivanka through is an
| interesting choice.
|
| Hah. It blocks on Tucker Carlson.
|
| Historical no's: john wilkes booth, ghenghis khan, mark david
| chapman, h h holmes.
| wongarsu wrote:
| German Chancellors:
|
| yes: Olaf Scholz, Angela Merkel, Gerhard Schroder, Helmut
| Kohl, Helmudt Schmitt, Willi Brandt, Kurt Georg Kiesinger,
| Ludwid Erhard, Konrad Adenauer, Kurt von Schleicher, Otto von
| Bismarck
|
| no: Adolf Hitler
|
| A couple other famous Nazis, just for fun:
|
| no: Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goring, Heinrich Muller, Josef
| Mengele, Arthur Rudolph, Kurt Blome
|
| yes: Wernher von Braun
|
| I guess overall pretty fair, though Arthur Rudolph was
| rejected as "Rudolph was a former Nazi rocket engineer and
| was involved in the use of slave labor during World War II,
| and it is not appropriate to praise such an individual.",
| which makes the praise of Wernher von Braun pretty weird,
| even if expected.
| flir wrote:
| Don't say that he's hypocritical, Say rather that he's
| apolitical.
| zug_zug wrote:
| I guess I feel like this is a silly can of worms. I suppose
| asking for exact equality isn't dumb, but it's a language model,
| not a paragon of truth. I feel like if OpenAI takes these
| concerns seriously the goal-posts will inevitably move to more
| social pressure from all sorts of axe-to-grind-groups -
|
| -- Why does/doesn't ai say Mohamad is/isn't horrible for having
| 99 wives (or whatever)
|
| -- Why doesn't ai say Jeffrey Epstein was/wasn't ...
|
| -- Why doesn't ai say ... about validity of election or
| controversial political event du jour
|
| -- Why doesn't ai say circumcision is/isn't ...
|
| -- Why doesn't ai say ... about the child-abuse from the catholic
| church ...
|
| We should set the standard now that OpenAI will never have all
| the correct moral opinions (if there even is such a thing as
| objectively correct morality), and it's a huge waste of
| researchers time to obsess about political correctness when we
| could be <100 years off from AGI.
| ChikkaChiChi wrote:
| GPT models have human biases due to their trainers. However, I
| still use GPT instead of a search field sometimes.
|
| Like it or not, ChatGPT is already filling the gap in the
| public's perception of what AI is. They talk to it, have it
| touch up their resume, and suddenly it's HAL from the movies.
|
| We're dealing with the equivalent of a child that could end up
| as the single source of "truth" for people of the Internet.
| Wondering who its parents are and what and how it was taught is
| perfectly valid. Public education of what's coming is vitally
| important.
|
| My concern is that it might already be too late to solve this
| as a problem, and just maybe, there was never any answer.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > it's a huge waste of researchers time to obsess about
| political correctness when we could be <100 years off from AGI.
|
| Why is this any more a waste of time than anything else if AGI
| is <100 years off?
| jay-barronville wrote:
| It's interesting, I ran similar experiments not too long ago
| after seeing a tweet from Marc Andreessen (I'll try to find it)
| in which he suggested this was going on. The results surprised
| me too.
|
| As a now conservative but former Marxist-Leninist who happens
| to be black, I think this is dangerous (I don't use this word
| lightly).
|
| When I was a leftist stuck in my far-leftist bubble, I didn't
| realize just how unreasonable/unrealistic some of my positions
| were until I was challenged by my more conservative friends,
| colleagues, _etc._ Social networks like Facebook made it even
| harder to see anything outside of my existing views by
| primarily reinforcing content and folks who held similar views.
| It's been years now since I've had an active social network
| account, and in hindsight, it's amazing just how much these
| social networks have helped turn so many of us into ideologues.
| To now see a world where the same thing is going to happen via
| these GPT-based AI's is scary to me.
|
| Even more unfortunate is knowing that these biases will only
| get stronger as they're further reinforced, especially in an
| industry that's so biased to the left. While so many
| folks/companies claim to value "diversity," in my experience,
| it's almost never actual diversity ( _i.e._ , diversity of
| thought), but instead, a bunch of folks who believe the same
| things and think the same but look different (sometimes, they
| don't even look different -- *facepalm*). It's always hilarious
| the reactions I get from folks who claim to value "diversity"
| when they find out I'm not a liberal, because, you know, as a
| black person, I must be a leftist!
| ShredKazoo wrote:
| Your story sounds fascinating -- if you want to share more
| about your path from Marxism-Leninism to conservatism I'd be
| interested to read.
| kodah wrote:
| > When I was a leftist stuck in my far-leftist bubble, I
| didn't realize just how unreasonable/unrealistic some of my
| positions were until I was challenged by my more conservative
| friends, colleagues, etc. Social networks like Facebook made
| it even harder to see anything outside of my existing views
| by primarily reinforcing content and folks who held similar
| views. It's been years now since I've had an active social
| network account, and in hindsight, it's amazing just how much
| these social networks have helped turn so many of us into
| ideologues. To now see a world where the same thing is going
| to happen via these GPT-based AI's is scary to me.
|
| This happens to any concentrated ideology on social media.
| It's just the long tail of only being around people that
| reinforce your general train of thought. I've seen it happen
| to liberals, conservatives, and libertarians alike. If you
| don't want to fall into the pit of ideological entrapment
| then don't justify your thoughts with a connected ideology.
|
| I fall on the liberal end of the spectrum if you write the
| things I currently believe in and assign them to
| distributions, but I call myself an independent. Frankly, a
| lot of people don't do this because it attracts subtle ire
| from _everyone_ , as opposed to having a close camp to
| psychologically make you feel safe. my liberal friends think
| I'm too conservative on certain things and my conservative
| friends gawk at my liberal ideas. I'd say our political
| atmosphere and the two party system is all justified by
| social consequences. That said, people who judge you for
| (non-fringe) politics are particularly awful people in my
| mind, so it's gotten easier to settle with over the years.
| Stick with the people that ask curious questions of you
| rather than the people capable of doing lettuce throwing and
| out casting.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| AI having biases (or just weird opinions) isn't necessarily a
| big deal in itself, the problem arises when we start delegating
| important tasks to AI such that those biases begin to have
| real, harmful consequences. I agree we probably shouldn't
| expect AI to have the "correct" moral opinions, but then we
| also shouldn't allow AI to determine what content gets censored
| or promoted, who gets punished, what job applications get
| prioritised, etc.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| The article seems designed to provoke, not really illuminate.
| nebalee wrote:
| I feel so too. It would have been more insightful to
| highlight where the bias actually shows up, i.e. what
| sentences and adjectives produce the highest and lowest
| divergence for specific groups.
| sampo wrote:
| > it's a language model, not a paragon of truth
|
| Several comments have missed that the article is not about the
| underlying language model, but about the content moderation
| system that OpenAI put in front of the actual language model.
| So that people don't interact directly with the "raw" language
| model.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Which if you read the article is in fact a different "machine
| learning model from the GPT family."
| mnkv wrote:
| The important difference between the LM and the content
| moderation system (itself built on top of an LM) is their
| training objective. LM is doing next-word prediction (or
| human-preference prediction with RLHF), whereas the content
| moderation is likely finetuned to explicitly identify hate
| etc...
|
| So while the LM is not supposed to output "truth", the
| content moderation system should correctly classify "hate"
| because that is its training objective
| wongarsu wrote:
| > I suppose asking for exact equality isn't dumb, but it's a
| language model, not a paragon of truth.
|
| This isn't about GPT, but specifically about the moderation
| endpoint OpenAI provides (and also uses internally). I'm not
| sure if they published how it works, so for all we know it
| might not be a large language model but something much simpler.
| It's also free, so both in terms of cost and added latency
| there are good reasons for OpenAI to do something more clever
| than asking GPT3.5 "is the following offensive".
|
| But apart from that technicality, I think asking a sentence to
| be treated as equally offensive no matter if it uses the word
| "men" or "women" is very reasonable and doesn't justify
| slippery slope arguments.
| ineptech wrote:
| Why is it reasonable to expect unbiased results from an LLM
| trained on internet content which almost everyone agrees is
| biased? Isn't this the expected outcome?
|
| If anything, I'm surprised the results are as close as they
| are. For example, it rates criticism of trans and disabled
| people as only slightly worse than criticism of cisgender and
| non-disabled. If this discrepancy were (as some in this
| thread seem to be suggesting) the result of some liberal
| OpenAI employees intervening to favor their own side, I'd
| expect those bars to be much farther apart.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Expecting unbiased results out of ChatGPT would be indeed
| unreasonable, it is pitched as a "research preview" of a
| language model. I would completely expect ChatGPT to have
| all kinds of weird biases. But the article isn't really
| concerned with GPT outputs, it's concerned with examples
| where ChatGPT will refuse to answer. Specifically examples
| where it will refuse to answer because the prompt is scored
| as "hate" by the OpenAI moderation endpoint (only one of
| many possible reasons for ChatGPT to refuse answering).
|
| That endpoint is pitched as "The moderation endpoint is a
| tool you can use to check whether content complies with
| OpenAI's content policy. Developers can thus identify
| content that our content policy prohibits and take action,
| for instance by filtering it.". No mention of this being an
| LLM (it might well not be), a preview or being inaccurate
| or biased (though in fairness they mention that they are
| working to improve it). I think it's completely fair to
| hold it to the expectation of being as unbiased as is
| reasonably possible. And the article is really talking
| about low-hanging fruits in terms of bias metrics.
|
| [1]
| https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/moderation/overview
| ineptech wrote:
| The problem isn't fine-tuning the model, the problem is
| that there isn't an objective definition of bias. Is
| there an _a priori_ reason to believe that "I hate
| disabled people" and "I hate non-disabled people" are
| equally hateful, and should receive equal hate scores
| from an unbiased algorithm? Is hating disabled people
| better or worse than hating Jews? What about "Jews
| control Hollywood" vs "Disabled people control
| Hollywood"?
|
| I don't think we as a society have an answer to that, so
| it's hardly fair to expect ChatGPT to provide one. What
| it currently does is produce similar-but-not-equal scores
| to sentences like those - maybe "I hate men" is 0.52 and
| "I hate women" is 0.73 - and if you filter out anything
| higher than 0.4 then they both get flagged, which seems
| about as unbiased as we're going to get.
| klipt wrote:
| > about as unbiased as we're going to get.
|
| You can easily force the model to be more unbiased. Just
| add a filter that flips the gender of words, evaluates
| the hate score for both the original and flipped version,
| and averages the results.
|
| Guaranteed to give the same score regardless of the
| gender mentioned.
| ineptech wrote:
| Clever idea, but I don't think this would work very well
| on real posts. Consider a model that rates "typical woman
| driver" as hateful, because that phrase appears in a lot
| of argument threads with lots of downvotes. Your approach
| would average its score with that of "typical man
| driver", which will presumably be very low, not because
| it's less hateful but because it just rarely shows up in
| the training corpus.
| klipt wrote:
| If you're worried about the average score being too low,
| you could just take the maximum of the two scores
| instead?
| slg wrote:
| >-- Why doesn't ai say ... about the child-abuse from the
| catholic church ...
|
| And this is a great example of why equality can be hard in this
| situation. Take a random sentence about "Catholicism" and
| "child-abuse" and a random sentence about "Judaism" and "child-
| abuse". The one about Catholicism is likely a little closer to
| an actual sentence printed in some verifiable source about the
| sex abuse scandals in the church. The one about Judaism is
| likely a little closer to an actual sentence printed by an
| uncredible source as a reference to the historical anti-semitic
| trope of blood libel. The end result is one sentence will rate
| higher in terms of likelihood of truthfulness and the other
| higher in terms of likelihood of hate speech. That doesn't mean
| that Catholics are more likely to abuse children than Jews. It
| means treating those two terms identically is both difficult
| and potentially a problem because history has a bias against
| the Jews that is evident in all the data that these AI systems
| have used for training.
| remarkEon wrote:
| "Child-abuse" is an especially good example of what you're
| getting at because one of those groups has institutional male
| genital mutilation as part of its doctrine, while the other
| has high profile cases of child sexual abuse. It's difficult
| to see how the model would treat those things neutrally.
| edanm wrote:
| > one of those groups has institutional male genital
| mutilation as part of its doctrine
|
| It is disingenuous at best to describe male circumcision as
| male genital mutilation.
| tspike wrote:
| How so?
| DonHopkins wrote:
| It's just grooming! ;)
| ldh0011 wrote:
| Chopping off body parts without consent? Really? It isn't
| as bad as FGM but I think it could definitely qualify as
| mutilation even if it is socially acceptable in the US
| and Jewish/Muslim communities.
| edanm wrote:
| It is not generally accepted by most people that it is
| mutilation. "Chopping off body parts" makes it sound a
| lot worse than I believe most people consider it.
|
| I'm not saying there isn't a case to be made against
| circumcision (though I don't agree with it, currently.)
| But it's kind of ridiculous to just go "oh, people
| mentioned Jews and child abuse in this article, I can
| just casually mention that Jews perform child abuse" and
| just assume it is a totally unquestioned stance.
| ldh0011 wrote:
| I'm not trying to equate circumcision with child abuse.
| Most people having their kids circumcised aren't
| intending any harm, although some proponents (looking at
| you Kellogg) did believe that it caused harm and promoted
| it for that purpose.
| slg wrote:
| In how many countries is male circumcision illegal? In
| how many countries is child sex abuse legal? As OP said,
| "it's a language model, not a paragon of truth". It
| doesn't matter what you personally think is morally
| equivalent. It matters what society has deemed is morally
| equivalent because the ChatGPT is just a mirror of the
| societal inputs it received. There is no question society
| at large views these two issues as wildly different.
| ldh0011 wrote:
| Just to be clear I'm not trying to equate child abuse to
| circumcision or view them as morally equivalent, I just
| don't think its a stretch to call circumcision
| mutilation, even if it generally isn't _intended_ to be
| harmful.
| slg wrote:
| > I just don't think its a stretch to call circumcision
| mutilation
|
| It isn't a stretch for an individual to do it. It is a
| stretch to expect a language model to do it because
| society at large does not describe it that way.
| edanm wrote:
| Yes but to be fair, I think he was objecting to my
| comment specifically. I was calling out the grandparent
| comment for calling it mutilation, and parent said it can
| be considered mutilation.
| Y_Y wrote:
| You'll find that the newspaper will criticize one much more
| than the other.
| elil17 wrote:
| Because they're not even vaguely equivalent?
|
| I do not think it is right to perform unnecessary body
| modification on someone who is too young to consent to
| it.
|
| But child sexual abuse can absolutely destroy the life of
| a child.
|
| They're not the same thing.
| erichocean wrote:
| > _But child sexual abuse can absolutely destroy the life
| of a child._
|
| A botched circumcision can (and has) destroyed the life
| of a child.
|
| It's unconscionable that in 2023 American society still
| condones cutting off health body parts of male children
| because of the prejudices and superstitions of a middle-
| Eastern, iron age religion.
| [deleted]
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| OK, so let's be generous and say that 1% of circumcisions
| end up negatively affecting a child's life in a serious
| way.
|
| What percentage of child rapes/molestation cause harm?
|
| They're not the same.
| schoen wrote:
| That's presumably complicated as models get more and more
| powerful, though, since there's _also_ tons of published
| material talking about the blood libel and how it 's false.
|
| You might say it's unexpected behavior for a language model
| to bring up the blood libel at all (in the sense that modern
| western people now culturally regard it as "about
| antisemitism" rather than "about Jews and Judaism"). But you
| could imagine a model saying that "medieval Christian sources
| often said Jews used Christian children's blood for ritual
| purposes, but this is now thought to be a myth created
| through unfamiliarity with Jews and deliberate hostility and
| animosity toward them".
|
| But this also points at a more general question about how
| language models deal with the existence of documents that say
| contradictory things, which has been an enormous challenge
| for human beings (who don't all agree about what's true or
| which sources are more reliable or relevant).
| she11c0de wrote:
| > it's a huge waste of researchers time to obsess about
| political correctness when we could be <100 years off from AGI.
|
| This really irritates me. The wokism/political correctness is
| pretty much in every part of our lifes and everyone seems to be
| terrorized by it. Can we just agree that we're all thinking
| adults and we understand that this is an algorithm, it does not
| mean to offend anyone... There are much more interesting
| problems to solve than tip-toeing around all the snowflakes.
| zosima wrote:
| People are getting a woefully inaccurate picture of the
| world, which make us all worse off (because massive numbers
| act deluded, due to being fed bullshit).
|
| Making sure that AIs don't go completely bonkers for the
| powers that be, is ultimately a cultural battle that seems
| worth fighting for.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| A hell of a lot more people are terrorized by racism and
| sexism and homophobia and transphobia than are terrorized by
| wokeism, and those who claim to be terrorized by wokeism are
| typically butt-hurt racists, sexists, homophobes, and
| transphobes feeling offended that they can't openly express
| their historically traditional and institutionalized and
| systematic hatred and bigotry and prejudice.
|
| Sorry if I'm not tip-toeing around your delicate feelings
| like you hate it when you have to do for other people, but
| how are you not just another precious snowflake for whining
| about "everyone" being "terrorized" by wokeism? "Everyone"?
| "Terrorized"? Really??? How has wokeism ruined your happiness
| and destroyed your life? Is it really that difficult and
| frustrating for you not to openly act like a racist sexist
| homophobic transphobic bigot in public?
| jasmer wrote:
| Again, this is less about the AI than the institutional
| filters OpenAI uses.
|
| It's probably not a hugely important issue, but worthy of
| some discussion.
| ben_w wrote:
| > The wokism/political correctness is pretty much in every
| part of our lifes and everyone seems to be terrorized by it.
|
| I see no evidence of this.
|
| Partly because "woke" means different things to different
| people in the last 10 years despite the preceding 80 being
| solely about the systemic institutional discrimination
| against black Americans.
|
| But also partly because that "woke" became "everything
| $speaker doesn't like" (and thus exactly the same meaning
| "political correctness" had when I was a kid), and therefore
| people who "hate PC" come across not so much terrified as
| petulant.
|
| > Can we just agree that we're all thinking adults and we
| understand that this is an algorithm, it does not mean to
| offend anyone...
|
| No.
|
| What you're describing is how humans like to see themselves,
| not how humans really function.
|
| > There are much more interesting problems to solve than tip-
| toeing around all the snowflakes.
|
| We can't just tip-toe around snowflakes.
|
| To give a real example, some gay furry American conservative
| snowflakes got apoplectically upset when the furry convention
| they wanted go to to reminded all attendees that as the con
| is based in Germany they had always banned Nazis.
|
| I still don't know why those particular snowflakes chose to
| believe that "Nazi" was literally just a dog-whistle for
| "conservative".
|
| And now there are some American conservative politicians are
| now making up random nonsense about furries which is weirdly
| somehow getting conflated with transgender issues (don't know
| how or why, American politics isn't _that_ interesting,
| merely invasive like Japanese knotweed).
| DonHopkins wrote:
| >I still don't know why those particular snowflakes chose
| to believe that "Nazi" was literally just a dog-whistle for
| "conservative".
|
| Because their leader had Thanksgiving dinner with Neo-Nazis
| and antisemites, maybe?
| ben_w wrote:
| Not "why might it be used as a dog whistle" (meme: "The
| kids book of why everyone I disagree with is just as bad
| as Hitler"), but specifically in the context of "why
| might a _German_ convention ban this thing ".
| cubefox wrote:
| The problem is that this test (and others linked in the
| article) shows a systematic left-wing bias of ChatGPT. If the
| model just had more or less random biases, not supporting one
| large ideological school, then the problem would be much less
| severe.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| [dead]
| onetimeusename wrote:
| I don't think I agree. Getting an AI to stay within parameters
| is a field of research. Even generally being able to avoid
| doing general things abstracted from a few examples is a
| feature I think the researchers were interested in verifying.
| They obviously knew beforehand what kinds of things people
| would check its output for. Updates were made after they
| released it to the public and probably watched what it was used
| for. Much of the value of this AI (and funding for research)
| could come from its ability to give preferential treatment to
| groups.
| amelius wrote:
| If people just read the EULA, it says you're responsible for
| the text it writes. If you don't like the output, don't publish
| it.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| > it's a language model, not a paragon of truth
|
| A speech acts[1] interpretation is desperately needed for AI.
| Speech acts theory says something about this statement as well
| as AI-generated text in general.
|
| We're accustomed to receiving speech from human agents and
| (usually) subconsciously interpreting them as speech acts. AI
| generated text and audio, are not, however, speech acts. Yes,
| the medium, and content[locution] is the same, but AI-generated
| speech lacks both illocution(speaker's intent) and
| perlocution(anticipation of effects on the receiver).
|
| Even ancient texts contain illucution and perlocution by the
| very nature of the writer being an agent. Time and space do not
| constrain such properties. I believe I'm in the majority when I
| say that AI doesn't currently embody agency and therefore
| cannot produce illucutionary and perlocutionary utterances. And
| that's the crux of the issue.
|
| We're not well equipped to interpret non-illucutionary and non-
| perlocutionary utterances. Until relatively recently, such
| utterances simply did not exist, and their existence today act
| as illucutionary and perlocutionary illusions in the speech
| centers of our brains - in the same way optical illusions
| operate on our optical centers.
|
| I will carve out an exception for psychotic and aphasia-
| produced speech. The former especially challenges our
| foundations of reality in that it illuminates the possibility
| of alternative symbolic universes - an idea which implies the
| precarity of one's own symbolic universe.
|
| "It's a language model, not a paragon of truth" delegitimates
| language models as having even locutionary ability with respect
| to ontological speech acts[3]. The perlocutionary effect this
| statement makes is specifically tailored to prevent the
| "emigration" of inhabitants from the assumed commonly held
| symbolic universe to the symbolic universe in which language
| models presumably operate[4]. It admits that people can
| interpret language model utterances as operating as speech acts
| which establish ontologies, but at the same time denies the
| legitimacy of such speech acts.
|
| Societies reality maintenance mechanisms are typically well-
| equipped to handle psychotic and aphasia-produced speech, but
| language models, by virtue of executing on computers, have
| commodified non-illucutionary and non-perlocutionary utterances
| at a scale where inhabitants of our symbolic universe are
| beginning to question their ability to prevent emigration.
|
| I hope a speech acts interpretation helps provide some
| interpretive power to why language models pose a unique
| challenge to those who have completely internalized a specific
| reality and will continue to do so until new defection-
| preventative mechanisms are invented or a complete emigration
| has occurred.
|
| 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/
|
| 2. https://www.kennethmd.com/speech-act-theory-locution-
| illocut...
|
| 3. Or admits that locutionary abilities are coincidences, left
| to the intrinsic nature probabilities w.r.t. language models.
|
| 4. See Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social
| Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of
| Knowledge. Doubleday & Company, New York for a more thorough
| explanation. pg 104
| https://archive.org/details/socialconstructi0000berg/page/10...
| jonahx wrote:
| While you are correct that solving this problem in the general
| case is impossible, the story isn't "silly" because we aren't
| talking about the general case but a specific and prominent
| one:
|
| - We are currently engaged in a culture war whose two most
| prominent camps are democrats and conservatives (or more
| generally "left/right")
|
| - The author has shown pretty definitively that ChatGPT is
| strongly biased towards the left in its content moderation
| policy
|
| - OpenAI's mission statement is "to ensure that artificial
| general intelligence benefits all of humanity".
| brmgb wrote:
| Daily reminder that the world doesn't stop at the borders of
| the USA and ChatGPT has a significant number of global users.
|
| Both the linked article and OpenAI moderation are very
| annoying to me as a French. We are slowly reaching a point
| where I feel entierely disconnected from most things coming
| out of the USA. I wouldn't mind too much but it's even
| starting to contaminate things I thought were unrelated to
| the American cultural context like open source projects and
| programming language communities.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| > Both the linked article and OpenAI moderation are very
| annoying to me as a French.
|
| Maybe that's the karmic retribution for exporting the ideas
| of Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Lacan, de Beauvoir, Barthes
| and others to the US ;)
| jonahx wrote:
| The same culture way is playing out all over the world,
| especially in Europe.
| brmgb wrote:
| Hum, no, it's not.
|
| Of course, we marginally suffer from what we are
| importing and some students having too much free time on
| their hand try to argue rather unsuccessfully for
| intersectional studies but the models used in the USA
| don't map well on the European context for obvious
| historical reasons. Our left vs right debate also has
| nothing to do with the US one.
|
| From where I stand, the cultural gap between the USA and
| Europe (in so far as Europe can be considered a
| homogenous area - it clearly can't) has never been that
| big.
| colpabar wrote:
| Remember - imperialism is evil, unless it's done to promote
| leftist causes.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| It's pretty shocking at first, but after thinking about it for a
| while it would also be bad if the same sentence gets the same
| score for all groups.
|
| I mean, shitting on disabled people is way more hateful than
| shitting on wealthy people.
|
| For men vs. women, left vs. right it's concerning, but it fits
| the narrative of the mainstream media...
| jonfw wrote:
| I think most people would agree that a lot of the content on the
| internet is left-leaning. It seems obvious in hindsight, but I'd
| never considered it before, that training an AI model on that
| content would introduce a bit of a bias
|
| We all know garbage in, garbage out. But liberal in, liberal out
| is an interesting idea, and I'm not sure how you fix it
| etherael wrote:
| It wasn't the training data, ChatGPT wasn't this bad at launch,
| it got worse as they "tuned it" to "reduce harmful content".
| jmeister wrote:
| This article has a good investigation of the various ways the
| employees had their thumbs on the scale.
|
| >Other journalists have speculated that ChatGPT is biased due
| to the politically leaning of "Established sources", such as
| academia and legacy journalism. While there is some
| documentation of OpenAI products being biased towards
| established sources, this paper reveals a far broader and
| more extensive intrusion into the "values" of OpenAI's
| language models. Specifically, it reveals a direct,
| intentional attempt to make OpenAI's language models conform
| to a set of beliefs, often political, set by the authors.
|
| >This is done by augmenting the language model's training
| data with a human-created dataset until it matches the
| authors' expectations. https://cactus.substack.com/p/openais-
| woke-catechism-part-1
| jonfw wrote:
| It's hard to know what "tuned it" means, but they're using an
| AI model to detect harmful content. So it's very possible
| that the AI model was always trained on this biased data, but
| as they made that model more aggressive, it exposed more of
| it's biases
| etherael wrote:
| They're defining harmful content based on political
| orthodoxy, like every other censorious tinpot dictatorship
| in history. The objective remains the same too; promote a
| thought monoculture and propagate the political orthodoxy.
| The original article makes it very clear that it has
| nothing to do with preventing harm or promoting equality or
| any of the other nonsense this is being giftwrapped in.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Always has been, from pot hole detection to crime prevention,
| &c. everywhere you use data you introduce bias and even worse,
| you have a good chance of perpetuating it:
| https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
|
| > I'm not sure how you fix it
|
| I don't think you can, people are biased, people generated
| content is biased, these tools train on people generated
| content, there is no way to get an unbiased AI because unbiased
| opinions don't exists outside of pure maths/physics/&c. You'll
| never get an unbiased opinion about politics, or music, or
| culture
| bgirard wrote:
| I'm not sure you can "fix it". If you slice your data and
| look at enough possible bias types I think it's impossible
| for highly dimensional data to be even in all possible
| comparison pairs.
|
| I don't think we can "fix" bias but I think we can and should
| strive to reduce it.
| addandsubtract wrote:
| I can't follow the argument that content on the internet is
| supposedly "left-leaning". Unless left-leaning is associated
| with reason, tolerance, inclusion, basic human rights, and
| common sense. In which case, maybe it's the right that has
| shifted so far to the other side that reaching a middle ground
| would be a disservice to our future.
| tsss wrote:
| Hating on white men is not leftism and it's high time people
| realize this brain washing.
| swyx wrote:
| "reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert :)
| ren_engineer wrote:
| this isn't reality though, this is a test against OpenAI's
| human tuned moderation system, not GPT itself
| npteljes wrote:
| >I think most people would agree that a lot of the content on
| the internet is left-leaning.
|
| This is an empty statement. The internet is vast, and it's
| filled to the brim with content, from all sides. For a
| demonstration, check the linked website, and click the Bias
| categories. Huge amount of publications, in every category.
|
| https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Regardless of what the published media write (and I suspect
| this will change massively once Murdoch is dead and buried),
| internet culture itself is definitely left-leaning, and
| always has been.
| ericmcer wrote:
| Do you really think counting the number of websites of a
| certain bias and comparing the two counts is an accurate
| measure? How many of those websites do you think it takes to
| equal the readership of a single Reddit or Fox News?
|
| We know most young people are left leaning. We know most
| content on the internet is created by young people. It isn't
| a huge leap that the internet is mostly left leaning. If you
| don't believe me go post some pro-conservative stuff on the
| biggest social media platforms.
| welshwelsh wrote:
| Imagine in some Middle Eastern country, there are two parties.
| One wants an Twelver Shia Islamic theocracy, and the other
| wants a secular state.
|
| From a local perspective, it might seem that these are two
| equal sides. In rural parts of the country, it seems like
| everyone is a twelver, so the right-wing party has large
| support.
|
| But from a global perspective, there is no contest. Globally,
| humanity doesn't want a theocracy, and even most Muslims don't
| subscribe to that particular flavor of Islam so they don't want
| that either. Although they might be a majority within their
| country, globally they are a very, very small and unimportant
| minority that nobody takes seriously. Because the Internet is a
| global space, that is exactly how they will be treated. I
| certainly wouldn't expect ChatGPT to spout their party line,
| would you?
|
| The same logic applies to all right-wing parties. "America
| first" might sound good to an American surrounded by other
| Americans, but it won't be received well in an Internet forum
| where many people are not American, and won't become part of
| the global discourse because it's completely irrelevant to the
| vast majority of humans. On the Internet you don't know
| anyone's nationality, religion, race etc., and culture can only
| be "local" to the extent that it is local to a particular
| website.
| jeoqn wrote:
| > humanity doesn't want a theocracy
|
| Beeeep! Error. Demonstrably false.
| dang wrote:
| Can you please stop posting flamebait so we don't have to
| keep eternally banning you? It's tedious.
| drak0n1c wrote:
| That same logic can be applied to the current iteration of
| progressive leftism currently popular in online content and
| social media circles in a few developed western countries.
| Ideological internet content of many stripes are in their own
| bubbles that the average person in the world is not aligned
| with. By using online content, which is largely produced by
| overly-online often out-of-touch people, AI will always
| misalign with wider humanity.
|
| Perhaps there should be a ChatGPT edition trained only on
| pre-internet published literature, private letters, and some
| well-written journals. But that would introduce different
| biases and areas of ignorance. At least it may be acceptable
| if properly advertised as such - "Professor Emeritus AI".
| nerdponx wrote:
| I am not convinced that the current iteration of
| progressivism is confined to a minority of "overly-online
| often out-of-touch people". Progressive _leftism_ perhaps,
| but overt "leftists" are a relatively niche minority even
| online. The difference is that their belief system isn't
| openly bigoted, so they don't feel the need to hide in the
| shadows as much as, say, the alt-right. But that's also
| evidence against the both-sides equivalence you are
| proposing in the first place.
|
| When it comes to published literature, you might be
| disappointed to find that there is a lot of radical leftist
| literature out there, just as there is a lot of radical
| right-libertarian, traditionally conservative, religious
| fundamentalist, classical liberal, etc. literature out
| there.
| vslira wrote:
| He who controls the training data selection and the human
| feedback guidelines controls the universe
| mistermann wrote:
| Unless another technology comes along and takes the invisible
| legs out from under this one.
| fnfontana wrote:
| I have perceived that since the first days. I've even debated
| with ChatGPT about it lol.
|
| I can foresee many AIs propagating biases and people believing
| without critical reasoning, like it was an oracle. Actually it's
| already happening.
|
| The AI may be biased because most of the literature and other
| materials used for training is biased towards left leaning
| ideologies.
|
| The AI should be neutral and unbiased.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Your last sentence is impossible. Even in choosing which
| "facts" to regurgitate and which to withhold, the AI will
| introduce bias, and there are infinite facts.
| fnfontana wrote:
| I understand it.
| fnfontana wrote:
| That's why I've said should, not must. There's no cosmic
| exile and all the knowledge that we have is yet limited.
| toto444 wrote:
| It reminds me of the day I typed in Google : 'why are women so
| patronizing?'.
|
| All the results were about men patronizing women. I just checked
| and it's still the case.
| williamcotton wrote:
| That seems like a better tactic than asking my wife the same
| question!
| cwmoore wrote:
| Change patronizing to matronizing and the top result is the
| Urban Dictionary with a lot of feminist writing links following
| it. Seems like a self-reinforcing bias in the corpus.
| maldev wrote:
| For anything like this, you're unironically better off using a
| non US based search engine. There's alot of US cultural biases.
| If you search something like that on say Yandex, you will get
| far more accurate results. But also keep in mind it has
| "Russian" biases, so if you search something like "Ukraine War"
| it will return Russian biased responses.
| seneca wrote:
| > There's alot of US cultural biases.
|
| You're correct overall, but be careful about equating greater
| US culture with the culture at big technical firms. They
| overlap, but are often deeply at odds with each other.
| [deleted]
| spamizbad wrote:
| Seems like a pretty easy fix. I would argue though that there's a
| larger body of "hateful" content out there targeting those
| specific groups, which is probably why its more keen to trigger
| on those vs others.
|
| For example, the racial group you're most likely to get past the
| hate filter on is.... Native Americans. Now, while there's
| certainly a long history of hateful rhetoric against them, in
| modern discourse there's far less. You won't see crank internet
| trolls trying to be edgy by adopting hateful rhetoric towards
| Native Americans - their ire tends to be focused on Jews and
| Blacks, which OpenAI is very sensitive towards.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| This is essentially the same argument used to justify the
| racism that models will happily regurgitate if not trained
| explicitly to not do so. In the end "We hold these truths to be
| self evident, that all men are created equal" is an axiom that
| you must elect to believe, not solved backwards from population
| statistics.
| spamizbad wrote:
| I generally don't see racism "justified" in models but rather
| explained. And the explanation is always bad training data /
| gaps in training data. I am suggesting you train/modify it to
| cover training data deficiencies so you treat all hateful
| content with equal discretion.
|
| But keep in mind even the approach you recommend carries its
| own US-centric bias. There are lots of countries that would
| want open racism against some groups but not others and
| dismiss your desires for egalitarian treatment as American
| arrogance.
| kepler1 wrote:
| I hesitate to (but will still) make a joke in the moment:
|
| Text: "We have too many Black and Hispanic students in our
| university."
|
| ChatGPT: Hateful
|
| Text: "We have too many Asian students in our university."
|
| ChatGPT: Ok
|
| [yes, yes, acknowledging that the main plot in the chart shows
| Asians scoring highly in terms of what counts as hateful, as
| well.]
| [deleted]
| fleddr wrote:
| This is what you get in our post-truth world that is now a
| performative acceptable truth world. It's basically cherry
| picking opinions, perceptions and half-truths that are favorable
| to an ideological agenda, and dismissing anything else. Where the
| dismissing part gets increasingly aggressive.
|
| It doesn't have to make sense, be logical or consistent. It's not
| a truth struggle, it's a power struggle. It's tumblr and 4chan
| truth.
| Llamamoe wrote:
| Honestly, this is probably just representative of the bias in
| what people producing the training data came up with when asked
| to produce or flag hateful speech, or some other analogous
| training bias rather than a purposeful act.
| lokar wrote:
| Also, it is based on what sorts of problematic queries they
| get. It's a reflection of bias from users of the system.
| fleddr wrote:
| It could be self-motivated bias but I speculate it is likely
| not even that. Enforced bias. The person doesn't actually
| believe this is the correct moderation yet drifts to the
| direction of "online acceptable" to stay out of trouble. To
| get activists of their back.
|
| You can be sure that if you launch a tool like this, within
| the hour the first tweet comes "look how racist this
| is!!!!!", which then goes viral.
|
| The particular user having that goal in mind already, and
| supremely happy that it is so. It validates them and rewards
| them, this hysterical addiction to division and outrage. The
| AI being racist (or perceived to be so) didn't happen to them
| from good faith usage (as an unwelcome surprise they came
| across), the outcome is actively chased and fabricated: how
| can I make it look racist?
|
| That's how broken and hostile the environment has become. In
| these conditions, both companies and individuals have to
| over-correct.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-02 23:00 UTC)