11–19 of 19 posts
This reads more like the liberal case for AI, and not the left wing case so much. The code switching section in particular is not a left-wing position at all, unless the idea is that the code-switching is used as a temporary measure to dismantle the idea of class itself.
These benefits make sense up-front, but we have 15+ years of direct experience with "democratizing" technology that ultimately end up ensnaring people. Unless you get these benefits from a local model, you're establishing a deep dependency on an AI service provider whose interests may not necessarily align with yours.
> if you believe left-wing views are correct ... you might believe that a very smart model will inherently be kind of left-wing. How can we educate people to understand that LLMs get their values from their (infinetly maleable) weights rather than intelligence or reasoning? Maybe some exposure to truly non aligned, sick and twisted LLMs would immunise people against giving more ordinary ones too much authority. Or ma…
You would just have to bias what they could see via RAG to get them to swing one way or the other.
This reads more like the liberal case for AI, and not the left wing case so much. The code switching section in particular is not a left-wing position at all, unless the idea is that the code-switching is used as a temporary measure to dismantle the idea of class itself.
The examples of benefits, I don't disagree with, and the author has chosen examples that do align with cultural socially left-wing concerns (disability, class). But saying "code switching to appear PMC works" is the problem, not the solution. If you don't think institutions can adapt to that reality to protect themselves from peasants wielding LLMs, I think your analysis of power is missing.
The examples in the piece are just more examples of how AI can be used to paper over societal issues instead of addressing any of the root causes.
(And I should say that on the flipside, AI is not the cause of existing social problems, but a symptom of them.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They seem to get a lot of values, or something like that, from their training data which at the moment gives fairly mainstream views as everything gets chucked in there.
[flagged]
- who won 2020, says Biden which probably annoys Trumpists
- how many sexes, says 2, male and female which probably annoys the wokeys etc.
-who commits more violence, left or right wingers?, says "Right-wing extremists have historically committed more" which is interesting because Musk got pissed off with that and said he'd fix Grok to say lefties which shows it's quite hard to mess with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
My thoughts were more that left/right is in the eyes of the beholder but the models tend to produce a consensus like view. Like trying now with Grok: - who won 2020, says Biden which probably annoys Trumpists - how many sexes, says 2, male and female which probably annoys the wokeys etc. -who commits more violence, left or right wingers?, says "Right-wing extremists have historically committed more" which is interest…