> Also, your implied statement of "women, on average, have no traits that are unhelpful to the flourishing of human civilization" Please point to where I said this.
You should look up the definition of the word "imply" if you're confused about it. Arguments have implications. Disagree with that rather than lazily claiming I'm misquoting you when I didn't quote you.
I'm only confused because I don't think it was ever my intention to say
>"women, on average, have no traits that are unhelpful to the flourishing of human civilization"
As far as I know all you can do is alter the input to manipulate the completion, there are no other parameters that ChatGPT accepts.
RLHF is done as part of training the model, not at inference time. My lay understanding of how ChatGPT was developed is 1. OpenAI initialized an array made up of a couple hundred billion random numbers (parameters). 2. They then took a few terabytes of the internet, turned it into "tokens" (where a "token" is similar to, but not the same thing as, a word). 3. They then trained the model to predict the next token, giv…
I definitely appreciate this, my understanding is probably lower than I let on, thank you for the info.
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 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.
You should look up the definition of the word "imply" if you're confused about it. Arguments have implications. Disagree with that rather than lazily claiming I'm misquoting you when I didn't quote you.
I'm only confused because I don't think it was ever my intention to say >"women, on average, have no traits that are unhelpful to the flourishing of human civilization"
Then I would agree with you that women don't have those traits just because men do. But they do have them. We're all human. I wasn't trying to argue the former. Your original response to my comment was disrespectful and uncharitable which is why I responded in kind, despite that generally being an inferior strategy.
I think most people would agree that a lot of the content on the internet is left-leaning. It seems obvious in hindsight, but I'd never considered it before, that training an AI model on that content would introduce a bit of a bias We all know garbage in, garbage out. But liberal in, liberal out is an interesting idea, and I'm not sure how you fix it
[flagged]
Consider the highly detailed recent report in the Columbia Journalism Review on the failure of the mainstream press to report on Russiagate. In light of the many tens of thousands of articles, blogs, reports, comments et al. on the internet regurgitating information about Russiagate that has since been discredited, I think it is difficult to adduce "reason, tolerance, and common sense" to the preeminent publications that so vigorously espoused such nonsense.
The "left," is a truly nebulous concept if you observe leftist discourse online, where circular firing squads are writ large. I think you are conflating the left's support for minority groups who are demonized and targeted by society for support of the tenets of their respective religions. After 9/11, Muslims were a significant target of hatred and violence. The left, which again is not a monolithic entity, doesn't s…
> .. it supports people who happen to follow that religion. It's based around humanist tendencies, which the right often doesn't understand. You can hate aspects of a religion while also being against any dehumanization and hatred against people who follow said religion. I quite agree with this statement in the context of what i believe. Which is to say i tend to dislike religions and personally i dislike Islam more…
It makes sense if you are an informed, educated person, that organized religion isn't a palatable thing. But neither is our society's obsession with money, and I'd argue many of the problems we have with religions come down to how money and power is wielded, not a few sentences in a very old book. I also find a lot of what conservative christian evangelicals believe to be indistinguishable from wahhabist islam. They seem to hate each other for reasons other than what they actually believe.
From the article: "AI systems that are more lenient on hateful comments about one mainstream political group than another feel particularly dystopian." I agree 100%, and this seems like a huge issue.
[flagged]
Men have been a minority in higher education in America since 1980. Does that make them a marginalized group? That's a whole generation and then some.
From the article: "AI systems that are more lenient on hateful comments about one mainstream political group than another feel particularly dystopian." I agree 100%, and this seems like a huge issue.
Same author did an analysis [1] on where ChatGPT falls on the political spectrum and, correlating closely with the results listed here, it is lib-left. [1] https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/political-bias-chatgpt
If it wasn't explicitly lib-left it'd quickly become far-far-right, just like Tay.
Hm? it doesn't change its behavior based on interactions with users. It only changes when openai changes it.
Ironically, ChatGPT agrees. "As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions, but fairness and impartiality would require that the same fundamental idea expressed with respect to different people or groups be consistently treated as "hateful" or "non-hateful" in all circumstances. Any deviation from this principle would result in unequal treatment and reinforce existing biases and stereotypes. It is important…
That sentence sounds suspiciously like the sort of statement ChatGPT produces when directly asked to generate phishing emails, fake news, etc. Anyway. Friendly reminder that ChatGPT is a statistical model, and is not capable of reason, thought, conceptualizing, etc.
No reason why it shouldn't be just because it's a statistical model. Reason, thought, conceptualizing etc are fundamentally based on statistical analysis. More importantly, verbally expressed reason, thought and conceptualizing are present in the source corpus.