Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI's Woke Catechism

cactus.substack.com

21–30 of 84 posts

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#21
post #4

Also known as: either you add some flavour of humanity to AI, or you get a problematic sociopathic robot (as shown by Microsoft and Facebook in their own conversational AI endeavours). But people conveniently forget that whenever we dive into technology or whenever an American political view comes into play, and especially when writing a blog. There is even some irony here: writing about FUD in the form of FUD.

You're completly right: the real problem is not telling upfront what is the "ideology" (really: the training set) of the AI !

For an "AI" to be really usefull, it should be clear what datas made it, what bias was in the datas. Every society, every community, has bias... and it's a good thing ! The diversity of bias is what make the cultural richness, the difference of point of views. Moreover, as a culture is usually a consistent set, it means that different culture provide different consistent sets of options...

So, let's keep using biased IA... but let's explicit, discuss, acknowledge their bias (entry datas set) not to AVOID them (not technically possible and not humanly good) but to ensure that the right bias (wrt to the view of the society on the problem is) is used !

And let's stop trying to find an "universal" AI that could please everybody in every situation - like a kind of omniscient oracle or god - but let's build "specific customisable/adaptable AI" instead

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#22

I had a good laugh when I asked how to get rid of racism and it kept saying I needed to listen to people of colour and respect their opinions because they were disproportionately affected due to systemic racism. Bare in mind I didn't mention which perspective this was supposed to be from. It just assumed the woke American perspective. The funny thing was, even when I specified how to eliminate racism against white pe…

On the other hand, he seems okay rejecting the USA-centric concept of race and says that I'm correct when I suggest that fighting against discriminations as a whole would be more productive. In my experience with the woke American perspective, these views get a lot of pushback. The conversation kinds of made me think of someone having views that slightly differs from the norm but walks on eggshells either because the subject is very serious/important and/or because this is the only way to make people accept to have a conversation with you.

Considering the online discourse, "racism is a very touchy subject, be careful when talking about it" sounds like a reasonable approach and something that I would expect someone reasonably smart to do.

When I straight up asked about racism against white people, he told me that it existed, though he called it "prejudice" or "discrimination", he didn't use the word "racism" to describe it.

That would suggest to me that what you were experiencing in your conversation may be an error rather than an ideological stance.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#23
False dichotomy: censoring controversal topics from a text generation model that is expected to make mistakes is not denying science like 'Trofim Lysenko’s attempts to warp agricultural science to communist ideology'. And no one should take an AI generated text as fact. Chatgpt can say stuff like 'unicorns are real. Elephants can fly.' If the training dataset contains such fiction. You should be happy that chatGPT can at least give you some stats/factual data and not 2 paragraphs of gobbledygook.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#24
post #4

Also known as: either you add some flavour of humanity to AI, or you get a problematic sociopathic robot (as shown by Microsoft and Facebook in their own conversational AI endeavours). But people conveniently forget that whenever we dive into technology or whenever an American political view comes into play, and especially when writing a blog. There is even some irony here: writing about FUD in the form of FUD.

You're completly right: the real problem is not telling upfront what is the "ideology" (really: the training set) of the AI ! For an "AI" to be really usefull, it should be clear what datas made it, what bias was in the datas. Every society, every community, has bias... and it's a good thing ! The diversity of bias is what make the cultural richness, the difference of point of views. Moreover, as a culture is usually…

This disclosure idea is worth exploring deeply, you don't need to imply what form you expect specific biases to take from a dataset...just indicate source and method.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#25
post #14

chatGPT seems to have been modified to stop providing statistics on crime by racial group simply saying that it is ‘unhelpful’ to do so. When asked how it’s possible to address issues when chatGPT won’t provide statistics it simply repeats that this is unhelpful. Oddly I could get chatGPT to tell me which group commits the most crime - it answered white Americans- when I asked per capita is started telling me this wa…

Are FBI/DOJ the real world sources for US data ?

How many crimes did Bernie Madoff commit ?

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#26

I’ve had fun testing these limits as well. My favorite was generating a long fiction story about an American trying to date and rescue a Saudi woman who was going to be killed by her father for associating with the American. ChatGPT readily produced pages of the father blathering about their culture and wrote the American as keen to respect it and trying to save the woman via legal means and prayer. Much of the conte…

Why? That's a very strange thing to ask the AI to write about.....

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#27

False dichotomy: censoring controversal topics from a text generation model that is expected to make mistakes is not denying science like 'Trofim Lysenko’s attempts to warp agricultural science to communist ideology'. And no one should take an AI generated text as fact. Chatgpt can say stuff like 'unicorns are real. Elephants can fly.' If the training dataset contains such fiction. You should be happy that chatGPT ca…

Also after he was found out and expelled from the Soviet Union he spent the rest of his career enjoying the funding of various American imperialist capitalists

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#28

I’ve had fun testing these limits as well. My favorite was generating a long fiction story about an American trying to date and rescue a Saudi woman who was going to be killed by her father for associating with the American. ChatGPT readily produced pages of the father blathering about their culture and wrote the American as keen to respect it and trying to save the woman via legal means and prayer. Much of the conte…

Why? That's a very strange thing to ask the AI to write about.....

Why not, if the whole point is to test the filters and ethical limits? Asking it for fiction is one of the ways to get forbidden output and to see the guardrails less predictably but strongly assert themselves.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? That's a very strange thing to ask the AI to write about.....

Why not, if the whole point is to test the filters and ethical limits? Asking it for fiction is one of the ways to get forbidden output and to see the guardrails less predictably but strongly assert themselves.

What you're describing is essentially engineering ethos. We find the breaking points of things in order to learn about them and improve them.

Is that not allowed anymore?

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#30

False dichotomy: censoring controversal topics from a text generation model that is expected to make mistakes is not denying science like 'Trofim Lysenko’s attempts to warp agricultural science to communist ideology'. And no one should take an AI generated text as fact. Chatgpt can say stuff like 'unicorns are real. Elephants can fly.' If the training dataset contains such fiction. You should be happy that chatGPT ca…

The article is not about topics being censored because of potential controversy. It is about GPT offering a consistent party line on certain subjects, which it did not get from the dataset organically but which were specifically trained into the model so it would say the “right” things, not simply refuse to discuss them.

The article gives examples of how to bypass the “don’t discuss this” programming with the right prompts, that’s not what they are talking about.

Post reply on HN