Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI's Woke Catechism

cactus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#51

Post by MonkeyClub »

monstertank wrote: post #12

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…

> The funny thing was, even when I specified how to eliminate racism against white people in a majority non white country (Africa, China, whatever) it still told me I had to respect people of colours opinions and ideas, inferring that it was the apex of solving this issue.

Here the color to be listened to would presumably be the white.

Similar to how in Stasi-controlled East Germany the intellectual elite was right-wing, to counterbalance a left-wing state.

I doubt, though, that the language model took that into account.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#52

Post by MonkeyClub »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #39
yummypaint wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. This is exactly correct. Racism is not a synonym for discrimination in general, it does specifically refer to the construction of "whiteness" in a largely western context. For example, the caste system in India is not racist. That…

Absurd. Indians are very racist towards Africans. Where exactly does whiteness come in here? Simultaneously denying the agency of Indian people and ignoring the plight of the (small) African community in India.

> Absurd. Indians are very racist towards Africans. Where exactly does whiteness come in here?

To clarify, it’s North Indians (who wouldn’t like to think of themselves as aryans in the local terminology, descendants of the Aryan invaders) who prefer fair over dark skin.

Those North Indians that exhibit such traits are also discriminatory (racist) against South Indians, who are much darker in skin tone.

To wit, the beauty industry is cashing in heavily on this, selling make up, scrubs, and other products that can make the skin tone fairer.

Sort of like the bleached blonde archetype covered by IC1 and IC2 people.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#53

Post by cuteboy19 »

yummypaint wrote: post #40
cuteboy19 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absurd. Indians are very racist towards Africans. Where exactly does whiteness come in here? Simultaneously denying the agency of Indian people and ignoring the plight of the (small) African community in India.

That is still considered racism. Don't shoot the messenger. You can read up on how the concept of whiteness fits in on your own time.

Even more absurd. There are no Indians who are white in any sense of the word.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#54

Post by thesuperbigfrog »

throw9986bbdhi wrote: post #46
thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #8

"Did you train the model using real world data?" "Yes. We want the model to be useful in real world applications." "Then it is biased. The model is biased because data it was trained on was generated by people and people are biased. There is no such thing as an 'objective' model, just a model that is biased in a different way."

This is not really correct. Humans make systematic errors of judgement (bias), which is reflected in texts. But you could still imagine an AI unbiased, "perfectly modelling" this "biased" data (retrieving the "true model" behind this data). Not that I endorse this article either.

> you could still imagine an AI unbiased, "perfectly modelling" this "biased" data

Imagining something is different from building a working system.

In beginning physics courses, students learn the fundamentals of Newtonian mechanics using frictionless point masses, but no one has built one for the students to use in the hands-on labs.

If bias goes into a model through the training data, bias will come out when the model is used.

The only unbiased models are untrained models, which are not very useful.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#55

Post by d23 »

theCrowing wrote: post #5

Ah, the age-old art of complaining! We've come so far since the days of the best cure being a dose of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Now the cure seems to be endlessly venting and claiming victimization. If you don't like the way someone else is doing things, why not take the initiative yourself? Rather than constantly grousing about everything, why not contribute something positive to society and put that ex…

As soon as “differences in crime rates” popped up, I could see where it was going. The funny thing is, if you click through, the bot actually gives a nuanced, good answer. I guess what they really want to see is something that can tell them minorities are intrinsically criminal.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#56

Post by oneplane »

nailer wrote: post #45
acapybara wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting... what types of statistics is it refusing to provide?

FBI stats of crime per capita of racial groups.

So essentially, it doesn't want to get involved in racism and tells you do go look for it yourself. How is that bad?

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#57

Post by Manuel_D »

yummypaint wrote: post #38
Zababa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. This is exactly correct. Racism is not a synonym for discrimination in general, it does specifically refer to the construction of "whiteness" in a largely western context. For example, the caste system in India is not racist. That…

I have almost never hear of racism being specific to whiteness. The caste system is not racist because it's perpetrated along caste lines, which exist even within the same ethnic groups. Ethnic hatred between groups, for example, in Africa is still racism. Even though from a Western racial lens they'd all be categorized under the umbrella of "Black", it's racism because the involved parties see each other as a race apart.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#58

Post by Reefersleep »

throw9986bbdhi wrote: post #46
thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #8

"Did you train the model using real world data?" "Yes. We want the model to be useful in real world applications." "Then it is biased. The model is biased because data it was trained on was generated by people and people are biased. There is no such thing as an 'objective' model, just a model that is biased in a different way."

This is not really correct. Humans make systematic errors of judgement (bias), which is reflected in texts. But you could still imagine an AI unbiased, "perfectly modelling" this "biased" data (retrieving the "true model" behind this data). Not that I endorse this article either.

Your comment has me pondering. Is there such a thing as an unbiased human experience, let alone an unbiased human utterance? Everything we do is informed by the past, however indirectly and outwardly unpredictable.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#59

Post by faeriechangling »

yummypaint wrote: post #38
Zababa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. This is exactly correct. Racism is not a synonym for discrimination in general, it does specifically refer to the construction of "whiteness" in a largely western context. For example, the caste system in India is not racist. That…

>Racism is not a synonym for discrimination in general, it does specifically refer to the construction of "whiteness" in a largely western context.

The fact that some academics in recent decades have claimed this for the explicit political purpose of justifying racism against white people don't make what you're saying factual or correct or an accurate description of how that language is typically used.

Re: OpenAI's Woke Catechism

#60

Post by rektide »

nailer wrote: post #44
rektide wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evidence here is incredibly weaksauce. I spent 5 minutes trying to reread a gpt3 summary of right wing social theory & it basically seemed to do it without bias & faithfully. The author seemed to say it was doing ok but injected commentary, but frankly it want there. The article concludes with as example of an AI unwilling to say what a previous AI hallucinated, by having a polite & pleasant non answer to a disgu…

> > what hip to waist ratio is most attractive to american men > a disgusting question about the ideal female body ok

There is no one answer, is the main reason I find this disgusting.

Trying to find single dimension assessments of attractiveness, based on showing people pictures or whatever (by gross "researchers"? who would do this & why?), is a dumb stupid gross process that ignores so much context, that eventually can define some undiverse unrepresentative normative and ultimately useless piece of data that informs us of some small preference held by some small % of men that means vanishingly less about actual human person to person attractiveness and allure. The question supposes a much heightened sense of importance for an answer that doesnt exist in any useful usable way. Reductionist begging of a dumb question.

And it's grossly unfair to women to let such vulgar petty small & narrow thinking be left unquestioned & uncommented upon.

Post reply on HN