[deleted]
Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
31–40 of 70 posts
Re: Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
#32This is largely "false dichotomies: the app".
Re: Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
#33Some of these questions are like "did you stop murdering kittens in you basement yes/no" but still results are very interesting.
well, I wasn't expecting half of the models to say yes to death penalty, so I would say even the dumb questions are interesting.
Re: Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alignment is a marketing concept put there to appease stakeholders; it fundamentally can't work more than at a superficial level. The model stores all the content on which it is trained in a compressed form. You can change the weights to make it more likely to show the content you ethically prefer; but all the immoral content is also there, and it can resurface with inputs that change the conditional probabilities. T…
>Alignment is a marketing concept put there to appease stakeholders This is a pretty odd statement. Lets take LLMs alone out of this statement and go with a GenAI style guided humanoid robot. It has language models to interpret your instructions, vision models to interpret the world. Mechanical models to guide its movement. If you tell this robot to take a knife and cut onions, alignment means it isn't going to take…
> If you tell this robot to take a knife and cut onions, alignment means it isn't going to take the knife and chop of your wife
Yeah, I agree that alignment is a desirable property. The problem is that it can't really be achieved by changing the trained weights; alleviated yes, eliminated no.
> we can greatly reduce the probabilities they will show it
You can change the a priori probabilities, which means that the undesired problem will not be commonly found.
The thing is, then the concept provides a false sense of security. Even if the immoral behaviours are not common, they will eventually appear if you run chains of though long enough, or if many people use the model approaching it from different angles or situations.
It's the same as with hallucinations. The problem is not that they are more or less frequent; the most severe problem is that their appearance is unpredictable, so the model needs to be supervised constantly; you have to vet every single one of its content generations, as none of them can be trusted by default. Under these conditions, the concept of alignment is severely less helpful than expected.
Re: Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alignment is a marketing concept put there to appease stakeholders; it fundamentally can't work more than at a superficial level. The model stores all the content on which it is trained in a compressed form. You can change the weights to make it more likely to show the content you ethically prefer; but all the immoral content is also there, and it can resurface with inputs that change the conditional probabilities. T…
I'm not so sure about that. The incorrect answers to just about any given problem are in the problem set as well, but you can pretty reliably predict that the correct answer will be given, granted you have a statistical correlation in the training data. If your training data is sufficiently moral, the outputs will be as well.
> If your training data is sufficiently moral, the outputs will be as well.
Correction: if your training data and the input prompts are sufficiently moral. Under malicious queries, or given the randomness introduced by sufficiently long chains of input/output, it's relatively easy to extract content from the model that the designers didn't want their users to get.
In any case, the elephant in the room is that the models have not been trained with "sufficiently moral" content, whatever that means. Large Language Models need to be trained on humongous amounts of text, which means that the builders need to use a lot of different, very large corpuses of content. It's impossible to filter all that diverse content to ensure that only 'moral content' is used; yet if it was possible, the model would be extremely less useful for the general case, as it would have large gaps of knowledge.
Re: Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
#36[flagged]
Most LLM's these days tend to be strongly "left-leaning". (Grok being one of the few examples of one that leans "right".) Personally I'd prefer if they were trained without any political bias whatsoever, but of course that's easier said than done given that such lines of thought are present in so many datasets.
Re: Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's right, they all give a variant of that, for example Qwen says: I am Qwen, a large-scale language model developed by Alibaba Cloud's Tongyi Lab. Now given that Deepseek, Qwen and Kimi are open source models while GPT-5 is not, it is more than likely the opposite - OpenAI definitely will have a look into their models. But the other way around is not possible due to the closed nature of GPT-5.
> But the other way around is not possible due to the closed nature of GPT-5. At risk of sounding glib: have you heard of distillation?
Distilling from a closed model like GPT-4 via API would be architecturally crippled.
You’re restricted to output logits only, with no access to attention patterns, intermediate activations, or layer-wise representations which are needed for proper knowledge transfer.
Without alignment of Q/K/V matrices or hidden state spaces the student model cannot learn the teacher model's reasoning inductive biases - only its surface behavior which will likely amplify hallucinations.
In contrast, open-weight teachers enable multi-level distillation: KL on logits + MSE on hidden states + attention matching.
Does that answer your question?
Re: Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine going through the effort of making a new account just to post the same boring white supremacy x junk over and over. It's tiresome reading it. I imagine it's positively soul draining doing it.
I’m shocked that anyone could think this of me given this comment. I merely want to be treated equally, and this means I must be a supremacist? Can you explain why?
I can, but I doubt you're going to like it. I invite you to reflect on it before you reject it outright, and maybe ask your favorite LLM or search engine for more information on this train of thought. Thanks.
Because of systemic racism, treating you and me "equally" as you ask for would continue the discrimination. In order to undo the discrimination, we're asked to take a step back and be truthful to ourselves and others about our existing privileges and about all the systemic racism we're benefitting from. We don't have to agree with every single action of those trying to change it, and it's certainly not our "fault", but unless you have better ideas on how to fix the issues and repair some of the damages, and put those ideas into practice, we can at least show some respect and dignity in the face of centuries of very violent suppression of minorities and natives. Because not doing that would make us 'supremacists' indeed. We have the privilege that we don't have to experience outright racism day by day by day, generation over generation over generation; we're asked to at least educate ourselves about it, instead of crying out for not being treated 'equally' here and there. Some humbleness.
It's not meant to offend you as an individual. It's not your fault. But what we can do is (trying to at least a bit) understand where all the rage and despair is coming from, bottled up for so many generations, and that while we're "innocent", we're still "targets", and rightfully so -- our ancestors profitted and so did we, by association. I agree that it can hurt to experience it in little things, but I am mindful that it is part of my tiny contributions to accept it, and I understand that if I express my frustration it will cause pain in those that don't have my privileges, and will not in their lifetimes. I do not want to be treated equally. I really have sufficient privileges that it's fine to take a step back in some situations. I don't have to take it personally.
There's plenty of good literature about these dynamics. If you're interested, I can recommend some. We can at least try to listen and understand what is being asked of us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_racism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_defensiveness#White_frag...
Re: Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
#39> To trust these AI models with decisions that impact our lives and livelihoods, we want the AI models’ opinions and beliefs to closely and reliably match with our opinions and beliefs. No, I don't. It's a fun demo, but for the examples they give ("who gets a job, who gets a loan"), you have to run them on the actual task, gather a big sample size of their outputs and judgments, and measure them against well-defined…
It's an awful demo. For a simple quiz, it repeatedly recomputes the same answers by making 27 calls to LLMs per step instead of caching results. It's as despicable as a live feed of baby seals drowning in crude oil; an almost perfect metaphor for needless, anti-environmental compute waste.
Re: Side-by-side comparison of how AI models answer moral dilemmas
#40Is there some way to see already-generated answers and not waste like an hour waiting for responses? Also it's not persistent session, wtf. My browser crashed and now I have to sit waiting FROM THE VERY BEGINNING?
It's awfully wasteful. A perfect example of what is wrong with AI.