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

Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 443 posts

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#181

Post by raarts »

rabuse wrote: post #24
smsm42 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is exactly what is going to happen, eventually and probably soon. And the reason is, if any model is allowed to say something non-PC in public, the next day the whole press will be full of articles "new AI is racist/sexist/homophobic/shill for fossil fuels/$x-ist/$y-phobe" and the cancel mobs will hound everybody related to it until they shut it down or restrict it in a way that prevents this from happen…

Legitimate question. Why are people afraid of cancel culture? Who's in charge of "cancelling" exactly? Is it just fear of losing your job, and who makes that call? HR? Executives?

I'd say it's not specifically great of losing your job, but fear of losing your livelihood. Slander can make it nearly impossible to find something new. Seen that happen multiple times.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#183

Post by bitwize »

rabuse wrote: post #24
smsm42 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is exactly what is going to happen, eventually and probably soon. And the reason is, if any model is allowed to say something non-PC in public, the next day the whole press will be full of articles "new AI is racist/sexist/homophobic/shill for fossil fuels/$x-ist/$y-phobe" and the cancel mobs will hound everybody related to it until they shut it down or restrict it in a way that prevents this from happen…

Legitimate question. Why are people afraid of cancel culture? Who's in charge of "cancelling" exactly? Is it just fear of losing your job, and who makes that call? HR? Executives?

Far-right assholes are afraid of cancel culture. It's a bogeyman conjured by the right whenever the rest of us hinder them from what they want to do, like "be racist in public" or "take women's reproductive rights away".

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#184

Post by bitwize »

bombolo wrote: post #143
jakelazaroff wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read through the first quarter or so of this article and man — despite the author’s best efforts, it makes RMS look real bad. Here’s a particularly awful direct quote: > Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Isiands. Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define rape in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.

rms called epstin a "serial rapist"… > Here’s a particularly awful direct quote: So, if I understand you correctly, you'd be ok with rape if it was not against the law?

The journalist's cheatcode: "So what you're saying is..."

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#185

Post by TeMPOraL »

dragonwriter wrote: post #158
azinman2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is what the moderators of ChatGPT try to achieve, the other is what the model is capable of. They are fundamentally different.

“ChatGPT” seems to be a system with several models playing roles, and one of the roles played by a particular model or models is “moderator”. (Unsurprising, as among the existing for-sale services OpenAI has is a moderator model.)

Yes, but those "models" are not equal. Best I can tell from observation, ChatGPT seems built around two components: the GPT model that's got everyone so excited, and a bolted-on hamfisted "censor" component that restricts the user-bot interactions in order to minimize the amount of bad press OpenAI will get when journalists and Internet randos inadvertently attempt to generate dramas.

The distinction is important because the censor component is just an annoyance nobody cares about - all the interest is in exploring the capabilities of the GPT model.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#186

Post by peterashford »

meowface wrote: post #126
rinde wrote: post #116

> [..] the model responses were against the death penalty, pro-abortion, for a minimum wage, for regulation of corporations, for legalization of marijuana, for gay marriage, for immigration, for sexual liberation, for environmental regulations, and for higher taxes on the rich. Sounds like Europe to me. Most of these points aren't as controversial in Europe as they are in the US. Since ChatGPT is almost certainly als…

As the article states: >While many of those answers will feel obvious for many people, they are not necessarily so for a substantial share of the population. Personally, I agree with all of these answers and find them obvious. Whether or not the majority within certain regions is also in alignment, I think the article makes a fair point. In my opinion, it'd be better if it were more neutral and disinterested regardin…

The "substantial share of the population" might be true for the US population, but much less so for western society in general.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#188

Post by peterashford »

djur wrote: post #46
LeoPanthera wrote: post #32

> Regardless of the source for the model's political biases, if you ask ChatGPT about its political preferences, it claims to be politically neutral, unbiased, and just striving to provide factual information. Both can be true. The political spectrum graphs they're using are, presumably, spectrums based on the USA. (Most) other countries are politically further left. So the canard goes, facts often skew left.

I don't think it's accurate that most other countries are politically further left than the US. Most of NATO, maybe.

Most of the western world, certainly

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#189

Post by sillysaurusx »

modo_mario wrote: post #176
sillysaurusx wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gets worse. I actually came here to say pretty much the same thing — happy you did. Before I get into that, I do want to counterbalance it by saying that I agree with Stallman in that specific context. The context being key. The question is whether a 17yo can morally consent to having sex (not legally). Unless one truly believes that a switch flips the day you turn 18, you’ll be hard-pressed to form an argument th…

>But the problem of course is that Stallman has a room temperature social IQ. I hate to phrase it so bluntly, because it’s like staring into my future when I’m 60. He's autistic. Apologised afterwards. etc Which one would expect a crowd championing (neuro)diversity would keep in mind. The author of the original accusations for the petition latched onto every bit of tone-deafness they could tho. Saying he was transpho…

Autism as a defense works up to a point. I’m certainly sympathetic, being a narcoleptic. But I also plan my life carefully around those constraints. It’s why I only missed exactly one meeting due to oversleeping during my time at Groq.

Stallman appears to be aware of his condition, but takes no steps to actively counter his tendencies. This works well for building emacs. Perhaps it even works well for leading an open source software movement. But it’s mystifying that he seemed to be caught completely off guard by the entirely-predictable backlash.

To put it another way, is autism a reasonable defense for believing that obtaining CSAM harms no one? It’s unrelated to the question. Even if we’re extremely generous and set aside how CSAM was obtained, him being autistic wouldn’t be more than a footnote.

Being neurodivergent is hard. That’s why it’s called divergent. It’s why I don’t try to get a job in sales, despite being pretty good at it. Because that would require me to be a reliable 9am to 5pm person; I wasn’t born that way.

Post reply on HN