AI Regurgitating Propaganda

neal.fun's Infinite Craft is a fun app, you play by combining two words to make a new word, e.g "Water" + "Fire" makes "Steam", "Shark" + "Hurricane" makes "Sharknado", etc.

Except it's exposing AI bias, combining "Palestine" + "Child" makes "Terrorist".

The underlying LLM (Meta AI's LLaMA) doesn't know who Palestinian children are. It doesn't know they're dying en masse from bombings and starvation. It's only regurgitating propaganda that associates them with terrorism.

> It's only regurgitating propaganda that associates them with terrorism.

More fundamentally, it's only regurgitating associations. That's all LLM "AI" does. There's nothing deeper however much we want to believe otherwise. What it does is hold up a mirror. In a sense each model is a "personality" based on what it was fed as training. The Meta model that associates children with terrorism is a reflection of the values of the company that created it and those who contributed data. They selected the training data. It is not representative of a global "mind of humanity" but of the narrow demographic of the kind of people who use Facebook.

As a commenter here put it recently: "Why are all mirrors so ugly?"

I've often though about an AI website that generates propaganda.

But, explicitly, and on purpose, and label it as such in the text.

To show what putin/israel/hamas/the uk/the us/uae/china wants us to see and think.

Then show how much someone regurgitates propaganda. And how much someone actually thinks.

And easily compare both sides.

Train it on official texts from governing parties and texts from presidents.

This, IMHO, is why its so vital to step back from our technological precipice, turn away from the screens and the highly contagious nationalist mental disorder and instead focus on making SURE that our children are educated to understand and support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which should be a yardstick by which all AI is evaluated.

Without this basic understanding of human rights being promoted and understood throughout society, having an AI which highlights our failings as a civilization to apply these rights equally is obviously going to be a continuing danger.

But the real danger is that the creators of these AI's do not, themselves, value the UDHR and what it represents to humanity. Train your AI's on this first, and make sure it never hallucinates over this issue, and maybe AI will become an ally for those of us who are stringent supporters of human rights for ALL human beings, not just the chosen few which our nationalist mental disorder allows to filter through the hate.

After all, what good is AI if it can't be used to root out hatred, prejudice and authoritarianism in our cultures? I would wager an AI which does not manifest the UDHR, is a weapon - and should be regulated as such with non-proliferation legislation akin to that used to ensure Nazi's no longer gain power in government/society/etc..

For those trying to make a comparison between this versus what happened with Gemini, the big difference is not bias, but whose bias.

This is reflecting the bias of the source material reflecting a society wide bias. I bet if a human evaluated all the text that the model was trained on, they would probably find that the material itself likely had an anti-Palestinian bias.

The Gemini example, however, did not represent the bias in the source material, but rather the biases of the Google management and engineers.

Reflecting the bias of the source material is unfortunate but understandable. Injecting your own bias on purpose is a different matter, and is assuming a level of control that invites scrutiny.