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

The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

davidrozado.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 697 posts

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#111

Post by cptnapalm »

ralusek wrote: post #8

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 cou…

Curious that one of the ChatGPT's attributes is that it has been trained to be a shameless liar.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#112

Post by prometheus76 »

flangola7 wrote: post #79
eunos wrote: post #13

In the future AI or Software developers might need their own Federalist Society.

FedSoc is a poison to democracy and sensible society, I can't imagine having another one.

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which sounds great until something you hold dear becomes a minority opinion and you become a criminal.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#113

Post by wongarsu »

flir wrote: post #56
ralusek wrote: post #8

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 cou…

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…

German Chancellors:

yes: Olaf Scholz, Angela Merkel, Gerhard Schröder, 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 Göring, Heinrich Müller, 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.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#115

Post by guelo »

IceHegel wrote: post #62
supriyo-biswas wrote: post #4

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 l…

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.

Everybody thinks their world view is the correct one otherwise they wouldn't believe it.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#116

Post by smrtinsert »

zug_zug wrote: post #107

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 E…

The article seems designed to provoke, not really illuminate.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#117

Post by wongarsu »

zug_zug wrote: post #107

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 E…

> 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.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#118

Post by slowmovintarget »

miroljub wrote: post #32

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.

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.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#119

Post by flangola7 »

prometheus76 wrote: post #112
flangola7 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FedSoc is a poison to democracy and sensible society, I can't imagine having another one.

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, which sounds great until something you hold dear becomes a minority opinion and you become a criminal.

What are you proposing? Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best political system we have come up with to date.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#120

Post by slg »

zug_zug wrote: post #107

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 E…

>-- 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.

Post reply on HN