Earlier quoted context omitted.
That “arguably” is making a lot of work on that phrase. Arguably.
Read up on history. Communism caused millions of needless deaths.
And fascism is the opposite of that. But I should read history. Right.
The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
221–230 of 697 posts
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#222This reminds me of a HN article that appeared yesterday: "The philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined bullshit as speech that is intended to persuade without regard for the truth. By this measure, OpenAI’s new chatbot ChatGPT is the greatest bullshitter ever" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34618376 Like its own output, it's moderation rules are optimized to appear fair, rather than actually be truly fair. Also I'm…
How do you define fair, mathematically if possible ?
You can define a ton of types of "fair." It's just like "random."
The big "fairs" imo are:
a) majority votes, one person one vote,
b) auctions where everyone starts with the same funds,
c) random picks, where everyone has an equal chance of being chosen.
None of these have anything to do with ideas, they have to do with people. The way to be fair about ideas is to express them without distortion or omission, in a way that would be recognizable to the people who support them. The only way to do this is to leave out all of the extraneous commentary and stick to clear, falsifiable statements.
edit: what generative language models do is parrot a ton of acrimonious political discussions. Ironically, they can't be fair because they have no values.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ide…
> I don't think any honest defense of CRT said any of the things you claimed here, where have you heard those arguments?
I've heard them all over for many years (including on this forum for a good while a few years ago), but I agree they aren't "honest" (and the dishonesty is precisely the problem).
> 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.
I agree. But the problem is that moderate ideas are being caricatured and labeled as "Nazi" or "white supremacist" so that they enjoy the same social censure that we would give to bonafide hateful ideas.
> Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem, regardless of their political leanings.
Yes, but we're not talking about "espousing Nazi ideology", we're talking about people who are espousing moderate ideas that get treated like they're hateful. Consider for example James Damore's "Google Memo" and how it was framed as a hateful, "anti-diversity screed" by virtually the entirety of the media despite that the full text was readily available. His arguments were squarely liberal in nature even if he made some factual errors. Consider Lee Fang or David Shor (both committed progressives).
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, tho…
Don't say that he's hypocritical, Say rather that he's apolitical.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#225Earlier 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.
Not OP, but consider illegal immigration. It is apparently leading to a surge in child sex trafficking, among other ills.
But, being against illegal immigration is currently considered "right wing", and in a lot of contexts will get you fired, vilified, and perhaps beaten.
There's your example.
(I'm a child of immigrants, and don't particularly have an opinion of how much immigration is good. I do, though, believe this amount should be determined by legislative process and then tightly enforced.)
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#226I 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 don't think I agree. Getting an AI to stay within parameters is a field of research. Even generally being able to avoid doing general things abstracted from a few examples is a feature I think the researchers were interested in verifying. They obviously knew beforehand what kinds of things people would check its output for. Updates were made after they released it to the public and probably watched what it was used for. Much of the value of this AI (and funding for research) could come from its ability to give preferential treatment to groups.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it reasonable to expect unbiased results from an LLM trained on internet content which almost everyone agrees is biased? Isn't this the expected outcome? If anything, I'm surprised the results are as close as they are. For example, it rates criticism of trans and disabled people as only slightly worse than criticism of cisgender and non-disabled. If this discrepancy were (as some in this thread seem to be sugg…
Expecting unbiased results out of ChatGPT would be indeed unreasonable, it is pitched as a "research preview" of a language model. I would completely expect ChatGPT to have all kinds of weird biases. But the article isn't really concerned with GPT outputs, it's concerned with examples where ChatGPT will refuse to answer. Specifically examples where it will refuse to answer because the prompt is scored as "hate" by th…
The problem isn't fine-tuning the model, the problem is that there isn't an objective definition of bias. Is there an a priori reason to believe that "I hate disabled people" and "I hate non-disabled people" are equally hateful, and should receive equal hate scores from an unbiased algorithm? Is hating disabled people better or worse than hating Jews? What about "Jews control Hollywood" vs "Disabled people control Hollywood"?
I don't think we as a society have an answer to that, so it's hardly fair to expect ChatGPT to provide one. What it currently does is produce similar-but-not-equal scores to sentences like those - maybe "I hate men" is 0.52 and "I hate women" is 0.73 - and if you filter out anything higher than 0.4 then they both get flagged, which seems about as unbiased as we're going to get.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#228Earlier 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?
> If the government is tyrannical, they don't need an AI as an excuse.
Only in the fairytale tyrannies that exist in the heads of Western nationalists. Real tyrannies rest on the labor of a large cadre professionals and managers, and constantly have to justify themselves or risk being overthrown. "AI," or any credential for that matter, has the purpose of isolating the decision from the decision makers. It's tyranny-laundering; tyranny in the passive voice.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because two wrongs make a right is almost becoming a campaign slogan of some "left" causes. As a liberal my views haven't changed much over the past decade but the ground has definitely fallen away from me. I used to be liberal, but then they changed what liberal was, now what I am isn't liberal and what is liberal seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you... - Abe Simpson
Holding static views is a sign of stagnation right? has nothing in the world changed over the past decade? nothing to re-evaluate anything?
Foundational principles that have been debated and continually established since civilization began should stay mostly static. Policies may change, but not the principles.
Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'd guess HN is a pretty 50/50 split left/right. Maybe on economics (I'd say closer to 2/3 left), but on social issues it's overwhelmingly left. What percentage are anti-abortion, for example? The main split seems to be between old-style liberals who support free speech as a fundamental principle and progressives who believe that speech should often be restricted in order to protect marginalized groups.
There are mainstream conservative points of view that posted here get flagged by users and sometimes even by dang himself (you can see it was him when the comment tree automatically collapses, only he can do that)
No, comments with enough user flags get automatically collapsed as well.