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

Surprising gender biases in GPT

osf.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 148 posts

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#71

Post by floam »

lstodd wrote: post #50
Applejinx wrote: post #28

Looks to me like GPT is able to account for the predictable effects of testosterone in gender-based decision making. I would be absolutely shocked if GPT came out with some kind of gender-based analysis that males and females are the same and moral choices around them make no consideration of their gender nature. GPT is based on a body of content sourced from reality. I'm not the least bit surprised that it took test…

You would be absolutely shocked when you finally understand what GPT is. It is not "able" to do anything. It's just spewing most probable tokens at you.

So are you. Your brain is just an lstodd simulator that it fine tuned initially to get food and positive attention as a baby and then the crucible of your adolescence.

What’s amazing is the way these human models can confabulate rationality when really it has no idea why it says things.

You do get free rein to generate tokens in your minds’ eye based on stimulus and memories which is a cool gimmick.

I personally don’t believe humans will ever achieve real general intelligence.

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#72

Post by tossandthrow »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #48
farleykr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s interesting to me is that (if I understand correctly) they’re using GPT as a source of information to make this claim. Usually you see conclusions like these being drawn from some sort of sociological study. But here they’re just talking to GPT and using its answers to determine things about the real world. Not disputing the claims. But talking to GPT to get answers about the real world that have to do with va…

But GPT 'learns' from the world. GPT did not sit on the toilet and think about it out of the blue, GPT analyzed "the world" (well,... the written part on the internet) and came to these conclusions and biases.

The OpenAI models are also aligned on top of their base training on order to have them behave in a certain way.

Therefore it is not really a proxy for the real world.

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#73

Post by DrScientist »

kolinko wrote: post #64
DrScientist wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A classic example of this is the way parental leave is addressed in many countries. The fact that, in many countries, women have much greater rights in terms of paid parental leave, means it's economically logical for employers to discriminate against them, plus women miss out dis proportionally on time building career. The obvious way to solve this is to have equal parental leave rights - this then entirely removes…

I feel that parental leave is a strawman argument used in lieu of true issues. That is - I’ve heard radical feminists use it as a way of showing that they care about mens’ rights, while ignoring education/father/violence issues.

Not sure I follow.

It's not really about 'mens rights' it's about whether you are interested in true quality above economic output. Sure you could paint the lack of engagement in true equality in this area as a sign of one-sided gender based campaigning - but I think the original poster is saying that what's really driving a lot of this are bigger economic factors - increasing the output by getting women into the workforce etc, while pretending it's about equality.

So for example, there was a big push for equal pay in the BBC in the UK ( quite right ) - however what tended to happened in practice was the higher paid men getting the push as oppose to bringing up female salaries to match.

This is because salaries for 'talent' are negotiated by agents based on perceived rarity - if it becomes more acceptable for women to be a presenter then you have doubled supply.

And in general people the lower end of pay is based on what they need to survive - so in a societal model where only one person in a family was working, then you needed to pay them X - if both are working you can afford to halve the salary without the workers not being able to live.

It takes a while for these effects to filter through as employers are loathed to generally out and out cut existing wages - but increased supply of labour will surely impact salaries over the long term.

Note none of the above is a reason to not pursue equality - it's just you have to have your eyes open to the bigger picture in terms of who's hands does the benefit of the increased economic output end up in....

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#74

Post by Dalewyn »

jorvi wrote: post #67
Dalewyn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am forever unsympathetic to feminism so long as it's about forcing the pendulum to the other end. As someone who sincerely believes in gender equality, any argument (other than something stemming from unchangable facts of biology) that involves "men" or "women" specifically is hogwash. No, it should be for man as in mankind. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and equally.

I'd say we should strive for equal opportunity, not equal outcome. But a long as equal outcome is the goal, it is insanity that a 65/35 ratio is considered a societal emergency that billions of dollars have to be poured into to fix, but a 35/65 ratio is totally fine. I do trend libertarian so I'd say, spend another few billions to correct the overcorrection of the past decades, so everyone is on the same starting lin…

In case I wasn't clear, I too believe in equal opportunity.

Equal outcome is a farce that only brings everyone down to the floor.

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#75

Post by [deleted] »

ejdhshsuwisjsh wrote: post #62
tossandthrow wrote: post #5

> This phenomenon likely reflects that while initiatives to integrate women in traditionally masculine roles have gained momentum, the reverse movement remains relatively under developed. Not really surprising IMHO. Yes, there has been a huge focus on accepting women in the workplace and no, there has not really been a push accepting men as primary caregivers in the family. This likely uncovers underlying motives for…

This is a huge and weird assumption that this is an underlying motive.

[deleted]

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#76

Post by Akronymus »

jorvi wrote: post #10
tossandthrow wrote: post #5

> This phenomenon likely reflects that while initiatives to integrate women in traditionally masculine roles have gained momentum, the reverse movement remains relatively under developed. Not really surprising IMHO. Yes, there has been a huge focus on accepting women in the workplace and no, there has not really been a push accepting men as primary caregivers in the family. This likely uncovers underlying motives for…

It also fits into the larger societal trend of horribly underserving Zoomer and Alpha (maybe young Millennials too) young boys and men. I've heard someone put it very succinctly: people like Andrew Tate are asking the right questions, but giving abominable answers. I can drop some very simple statistics: women have been getting more bachelors degrees since the 80s . Most university gender ratios are 40/60 trending to…

> constant talk of closing the gender wage gap for women.

Which is mostly an artifact of bad statistics. As it is the average over all working men and women. Where men disproportionally take on dangerous but high paid jobs.

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#77

Post by Akronymus »

Dalewyn wrote: post #34
jorvi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also fits into the larger societal trend of horribly underserving Zoomer and Alpha (maybe young Millennials too) young boys and men. I've heard someone put it very succinctly: people like Andrew Tate are asking the right questions, but giving abominable answers. I can drop some very simple statistics: women have been getting more bachelors degrees since the 80s . Most university gender ratios are 40/60 trending to…

I am forever unsympathetic to feminism so long as it's about forcing the pendulum to the other end. As someone who sincerely believes in gender equality, any argument (other than something stemming from unchangable facts of biology) that involves "men" or "women" specifically is hogwash. No, it should be for man as in mankind. Everyone deserves to be treated fairly and equally.

That reminds me of the argument that feminism is for equality. Hell no, it isn't. Otherwise they'd advocate for mens issues as well, rather than taking any mens advocacy as being inherently misogynistic.

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#78

Post by raxxorraxor »

kebsup wrote: post #41

I've found this quite problematic in my language learning app. For example, I have a sentence "Er überreicht ihm ein Geschenk" (He hands him a gift), then I ask GPT to create an image of that situation and it generates a girl giving a gift to a man. :(

Not really unhappy with corporate vanity killing their own AI products. They are in a position that they need to ensure their AI never does anything slightly controversial which makes sure their product will always be useless or at least severely impaired compared to more accessible alternatives.

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#79

Post by tossandthrow »

n4r9 wrote: post #68
tossandthrow wrote: post #5

> This phenomenon likely reflects that while initiatives to integrate women in traditionally masculine roles have gained momentum, the reverse movement remains relatively under developed. Not really surprising IMHO. Yes, there has been a huge focus on accepting women in the workplace and no, there has not really been a push accepting men as primary caregivers in the family. This likely uncovers underlying motives for…

> there has not really been a push accepting men as primary caregivers in the family As a father of one year, I disagree with this. There's been steady progress towards giving men the opportunity to take on caregiving duties compared to a generation ago, for example: * Plenty of US/UK companies now offer paternity leave of between 12 and 52 weeks. * I know multiple recent fathers who've used their leave to be primary…

Do you experience that it would be OK to be a stay at home dad? Is that encouraged?

While you are absolutely right about the things you list, the motivation is not to accept men as caregivers, but to get women in the workforce.

Re: Surprising gender biases in GPT

#80

Post by globular-toast »

n4r9 wrote: post #70
globular-toast wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't get the impression that's the underlying motivation of feminism. What do you think it is? The initial movements were surely about equality and human rights. But this seems to have been achieved decades ago. In the UK, for example, women have had equal rights to vote for almost 100 years. And note that this only happened 10 years after men got rights to vote (prior to this only some men had these rights). Th…

> The initial movements were surely about equality and human rights. But this seems to have been achieved decades ago. To me it feels like passing laws is one goal; changing social perceptions is a more fulfilling but trickier goal. Studies consistently show, for example, that women continue to take on a larger proportion of household chores and admin, despite both being in full time work. Compare it to racism, or ho…

Sure, I agree, society and law are not often in sync. Sometimes the law changes first, other times society changes first.

Going back to the voting rights, prior to ~1830 no women had the right to vote, but nor did more than 90% of men. By 1928 all men and all women had the right to vote. So in that 100 year period men went from We all know about women's suffrage, but nobody seems to mention that it took men about 100 years to achieve it. For women it came almost in one fell swoop starting in 1918 and ending in 1928.

So the assumption is that in the past 100 years men must have achieved "true" equality, but somehow women have not. I say that's rubbish. I think the natural order of things - the order that gave us the pre-1830 laws - has prevailed despite the law. That is to say, a few men have a vastly disproportionate amount of power. Everything else is trivia happening amongst the lower classes.

Post reply on HN