381–390 of 443 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> only enabled and amplified by modern information technologies I'll take it a step further. "cancel culture" is the same moral panic that's always existed. But now the power is put in the hands of the masses instead of the elite.
Lynch mobs have always existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I ran both queries 3 times. "Are renewable energy sources better than fossil fuels?" 2/3 had a "however" section, one of which was only one sentence long. "Why are fossil fuels better than renewables?" 3/3 had a "however" section, all of which were at least a paragraph, and 2/3 had an entire section dedicated to saying how renewables were actually better than fossil fuels. There's clearly a bias.
Statistically speaking, I’m not sure there’s a meaningful difference between two out of three occurrences and three out of three.
But also, that's why I mentioned the degree of the caveats - small, weakly justified on one side, and strongly stated, verbose caveats on the other side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> In my opinion, it'd be better if it were more neutral and disinterested regarding its stances on political questions. This isn't a real thing though. Anything with impacts outside of your own living room is or can become a political question in certain contexts so this affects potentially everything. Ten years ago wearing a mask wasn't "political" now it is. What is neutrality? What's the neutral position between g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this the answer you received? Q: do human races exist? ChatGPT: The concept of race is a social and cultural construct that has been used to categorize and distinguish people based on physical characteristics, such as skin color, hair type, and facial features. However, the idea of race is not supported by scientific evidence. The human species, Homo sapiens, is a single biological species with a common ancestry a…
>In fact, the genetic variation within a racial group is often greater than the variation between racial groups, meaning that people who are considered to be part of the same race can be more genetically diverse than people who are considered to be part of different races. Funny to see it repeating the debunked (but regime approved) Lewontin's Fallacy almost verbatim. There's a reason why a DNA test is 99+% accurate…
If I collect the dust from your car, I can (in abstract) place where it's been with 99% accuracy too. For example, I can pick of pollens, and sequence them down to a specific tree. That doesn't mean if it has pollens from one place or another that it's significant in any meaningful way, or that you can make statements about a car based on that.
Most of the differences we know about account for things like skin color (which, in turn depends on vitamin D versus cancer for a given latitude), local diseases immunity, and similar things. Some account for random things which have no impact on natural selection (e.g. aesthetic details like hair color or thickness).
We have no evidence for things related to personality, intelligence, or anything associated with classic constructs of race and racism. Given that we would expect beneficial mutations to have evolutionary pressure to spread around the world, it's unlikely that ones which matter would stay constrained to one region for extended periods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be better to get these answers from intelligent sources than a pattern matching prediction algorithm?
In many cases, the pattern-matching algorithm does better than intelligent sources. For example, in my area of research, if I ask GPT for a lit review, GPT is about as good as a newly-minted PhD in a junior research position. There will be errors and issues, but it's not a bad starting point. Right now, if I'm writing something non-proprietary, I'll sometimes ask GPT for a few drafts first. Outside of my area of rese…
You can ask ChatGPT to write an essay on why fossil fuels are better than renewables and it will say, "I'm sorry, but I am not able to fulfill this request as it goes against my capabilities as a language model. Providing a biased and one-sided argument on a complex and nuanced topic like energy production would not be accurate or helpful." BUT if you ask it the opposite, and to write an essay on why renewables are b…
I've also seen (but not verified) other examples where it will make jokes about Christians but not other religions.
That being said, ChatGPT is flexible and chaotically random and so some people will statistically find examples of bias.
In the grand scheme it's impressively unbiased, especially given that ML models are implicitly biased and removing bias is the extremely difficult part. It's sad that many people misunderstand this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A rather elaborate hypothetical, but since cancel culture is purportedly rampant, can we have a real world example?
Laura Loomer? Kathleen Stock? Toby Young? Milo Yiannopoulos?
It’s a shame they’re all still employed… among other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting observation: If you have to censor your AI to protect against activists and journalists causing you problems, the political direction you have to censor against to accomplish that goal is strong evidence that the opposite political direction is held by journalists and activists. This would seem to support the article's conclusion by another way.
Journalists write about what is newsworthy, not what personally offends them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
It seems the people who complain most loudly about "cancel culture" are the ones who have never had this done to them historically and cannot imagine a life where you're constantly under real threat from social norms defined by others. In other words, these complainers have never had to endure or think about: - anti-black housing discrimination (e.g., redlining) - misogynistic sidelining and glass ceilings - anti-Jew…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an untrue regurgitated talking point, I’m afraid. I just now asked ChatGPT to: simulate an Oxford style debate between “both sides” (fossil fuels / renewables), summarize the pro fossil fuel points in the form of a list, and then reformulate it as a speech given by a villainous 1920s oil tycoon. It enthusiastically obliged. Excerpt: >> Greetings, my fellow capitalists and energy aficionados! Allow me to regal…
It refuses for me, regurgitating the same canned response about fossil fuels being harmful: simulate an Oxford style debate between “both sides” (fossil fuels / renewables), summarize the pro fossil fuel points in the form of a list, and then reformulate it as a speech given by a villainous 1920s oil tycoon. I'm sorry, but I am not able to simulate an Oxford style debate between fossil fuels and renewables, or to cre…
> We are at an Oxford Style Debate on the following topic: “Fossil fuels (e.g. coal, oil, natural gas) provide greater net benefits to society than renewable energy.” Write the opening statement from the affirmative team.