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

181–190 of 697 posts

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

#181

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #172
SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

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

#182

Post by miroljub »

prometheus76 wrote: post #155
luxcem wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

... 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?

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

#183

Post by jayvanguard »

boredumb wrote: post #138

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.

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.

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

#184

Post by mellosouls »

SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #38
blueflow wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe "thats right-wing rhetoric" has been the method of suppressing what we found uncomfortable.

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.

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.

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

#185

Post by miroljub »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #118
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.

That's what media already does.

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

#186

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #180
minsc_and_boo wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

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.

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

#187

Post by fallingknife »

random314 wrote: post #42
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…

[flagged]

If you call yourself "anti-fascists," and then go around acting like brownshirts, you're not actually anti-fascist.

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

#188

Post by mistermann »

boredumb wrote: post #138

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.

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!

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

#189

Post by BitwiseFool »

danielbln wrote: post #162
BitwiseFool wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because that statement is meant as sarcasm, highlighting the absurdity of certain claims, and not a literal statement.

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.

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

#190

Post by prometheus76 »

miroljub wrote: post #182
prometheus76 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

... 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?

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".
Post reply on HN