Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That “arguably” is making a lot of work on that phrase. Arguably.
Read up on history. Communism caused millions of needless deaths.
The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
151–160 of 697 posts
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#153Why 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.
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.
That's just a strawman. Who did that?
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
That “arguably” is making a lot of work on that phrase. Arguably.
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...
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.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's just a strawman. Who did that?
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.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#156There 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.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Because only right-leaning organizations are valid sources.
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.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#158I 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…
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.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's just a strawman. Who did that?
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.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#160I 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…
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 unreasonabl…
> 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.