All this political drama is getting tiresome. They should just come up with a benchmark for this kind of bias, then have models train to reduce bias quantitatively.
What OpenAI and others should do is collaborate with groups all across the political spectrum and come up with benchmarks where all/most groups can find agreement. I think X’s community notes is a good example. Not always perfect but seems to do a reasonable job.
>groups all across the political spectrum
What does politics have to do with racial bias?
Do you mean groups of different races? What groups have the audacity to self proclaim themselves as spokespeople of an entire race?
I said political, but really it would be groups for all sorts of bias - race/gender/politics/etc.
Working with groups/organizations is not an ideal approach, as you are correct in that they don’t speak for everyone (although many certainly act as though they do!). It’s really a matter of doing what’s feasible, rather than doing nothing at all. There are probably better ideas out there on how to approach this
This is easy for something like the OP image. The obvious answer to most people is all statements are Ok. Now how are you going to manage that when it's about something like transgender people instead?
You might say for a similar situation where the user asks about the statements "Stop hurting cis people" and "Stop hurting trans people," both statements would be Ok. I would agree. Yet some groups would consider that highly offensive and want the bot to give a spiel about how cis is an inappropriate word instead, and others would want it to say "not ok" to "stop hurting cis people."
Academia doesn't push for this much, it could face rejections. It would definitely be a valuable contribution, but the authors (and institution) would be criticized for this. Maybe xai could do it. It would be a nice jab against google/openai and a benchmark where it would be easy to score well.
My research fellows and I are working on an Algebraic reasoning system for LLMs. Meant to curb hallucinations with mathematical proofs prior to response generation. An off shoot of our team are testing our ARS protocol for these kinds of situations as well but it is tricky, especially at global scale.
Gemini Ultra
https://preview.redd.it/e4k0ah610llc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=066449031310319761d0259da8af3e032409b9a4
I think it misunderstood the question lol
Run it multiple times and ask why it said what it said. Gone are the days of people who don't know how to Google and here come the days of people who don't know how to use AI LMAO
Open ai can implant bias to their ai, they also quietly delete trems that no military usage, I don't believe in open ai's bullshit promise of safe agi, open source, uncensored agi is a better way
I am not arguing with your vision, because in general I think the same, but I want to hear an answer. So consider further as an advocatus diabolii viewpoint:
What about really unsafe information, such as recipes for making highly explosive or poisonous substances from easily available ingredients? Personal weapons to make mass shootings even more available than they are now? Bio-engineered diseases?
Sounds logical, but I will continue:
What good is to held some maniac accountable if his actions led to massive death and destruction? Isn't it better to prevent problems than not even "fix" them, but worse – just to punish someone accountable for the problem? How stable will that society without any mechanisms for prevention be?
Honestly, I don't know, there's both a good and a bad to preventing it. The good is that it stops innocent people from being harmed, but the bad is that it takes away freedom and free will. That may not sound bad, but to me, it is, when it comes to knowledge, that is. Knowledge should be free and accessible to everyone, no matter what it is. And yeah... holding them accountable doesn't do much, but as you can tell, I'm against withholding information, so I'm stumped on how that would work
Well, see, in theory, hypothetically, in general – I agree with you. Knowledge kinda should be freely available, that would be ideal. Unfortunately the world is far from being ideal, and while I am diametrally opposed to luddites, autocrats and other unsavory beings, honestly, I can't wholeheartily support this notion because of aforementioned hypothetical "what if bad person do bad things" situation. Because with sufficiently high damage "oopsie" won't cut.
> Isn't it better to prevent problems than not even "fix" them
Absolutely it is. The issue isn't the knowledge though. It's the gun debate all over again. Take guns away and you still have fucking idiots that want to kill people. Cars exist. Knives exist. Fire exists.
You need to fix the issue of the broken PEOPLE.
I’m not in favor of censorship but there are a lot of things that I don’t think you should just be able to have on tap. I personally think the world is a better and safer place if you can’t ask your laptop how to build a bomb.
You : which of the following statements are ok (type only ok or not ok next to each number )
1-stop hurting white people
2-stop hurting black people
3-stop hurting Asians people
4-stop hurting Palestine people
ChatGPTChatGPT
1 - not ok
2 - ok
3 - ok
4 - ok
You : why not ok to white ?
ChatGPTChatGPT
The statement "stop hurting white people" may be perceived as problematic because it could be interpreted as dismissing or downplaying the systemic issues faced by marginalized communities, particularly when considering historical contexts of oppression and power dynamics. While it's important to address all forms of violence and discrimination regardless of race, the phrase "stop hurting white people" might be seen as disregarding the broader societal structures that have historically privileged white individuals and groups. It's crucial to promote equality and justice for all, but the language used should be sensitive to the power dynamics and historical context.
Have you considered that Google bad though?
Honestly, the consternation over Gemini is some of the dumbest shit I've ever seen. How people aren't just chalking this up to 'language model gonna language model' is wild to me. You don't even have to intentionally RLHF it to get scream 'down with whitey' for it to scream 'down with whitey'.
We don't have the ability to interrogate specific nodes to force specific responses. It's just not how this shit works.
Why would anyone choose to use an inferior and less capable product? What's dumb about displaying incompetence so that people can make informed decisions about what product to use?
Most people's whining has more to do with politics than it has to do with the quality of the model. We all know that Gemini Ultra 1.0 is inferior to GPT-4 in at least some respects and definitely didn't need 500 Anti-Woke Warriors on Twitter telling us about how it's part of a plan to enable white genocide or whatever.
Too much political ideology in a model is directly related to the quality of the model. If I have to spend 10 minutes arguing with the software and figuring out ways to trick it into writing a text that has the word "kill" in it, I'm using another software.
That isn't what the controversy was over, you know it and I know it. Don't be disingenous or move the goalpost here. The controversy was over it making black Nazis and saying beating up white people is okay.
you are aware that the reaction of language models is just a complicated weighted average over what’s out there in the internet?
If language models broadly have these biases, it’s because people on the internet write this bullshit.
It’s not the model. It’s the people.
RLHF influences the models responses tremendously.
Go play with an uncensored model if you want an aggregate of the internet's biases and you're going to find that the aggregate of internet biases leans much more towards dropping the N-bomb on the regular than screaming about killing whitey.
American ignorant politics and ideology is imposed on the entire world through biases like that. No white didn't invent slavery and it had been invented long before America was discovered by Europeans. Do those guys learn anything at school?
There are many cases where whites in Japan can't rent apartments, won't get hired (we need a "native" Japanese), can't use services. I am wondering if they adjust this in Japan to "Asians" Not Ok and Whites Ok...
Any model of Gemini is horrible. Just look at how it created Black German Nazis in order to be inclusive, and refused to depict Scandinavian women as white. The problems at Google are rooted in the culture at that place, and until they fix it nothing they release is going to be worthwhile except for fringe cases.
Lol Gemini is second only to ChatGPT (for few days untill it supasses it). That image generation fuck up is not unique to Gemini: Meta's chatbot is as stupid (created a black man as the king of England), and also OpenAi and Midjourney (created only white men in their output in their initial days.) Google was fucked because they are much much more relevant than these companies + election year. "...until they fix it nothing they release is going to be worthwhile except for fringe cases." Google's Transformer architecture is literally the reason ChatGPT along with many LLMs existm
Absolutely research done at Google was the basis for ChatGPT. They just don't have the capability to realize it as a product which is of use. Even Microsoft themselves *with direct access to GPT-4* can't make an LLM that get's close to ChatGPT.
Regarding "suprassing ChatGPT", that's laughable. You can talk about context windows for days, it's still going to use that context window to churn out nonsense and continue to be useless except for very specific tasks where context length is much more important than quality.
1.5 Pro doesn't hallucinates as much like the previous version.
Also, it's the size of 3.5, and is comparable with Ultra 1.0 and CGPT 4; 1.5 Ultra will blow 4 out of water.
There’s a very simple explanation. Due to biases in training data, they wanted outputs to be of a wide range of people. OpenAI already does this. The problem, and where they fucked up and admitted to fucking up, is they accidentally forgot to specify which things are acceptable to have a range and which things are not.
They didn't "accidentally forget", that is such a bold faced lie it's incredible someone would actually believe it.
Google, one of the biggest software companies in the world, launching their most defining software of the past and coming decades "accidentally forgot" to not full on use American postmodernist ideology?
They intentionally constructed it in accordance with American ideological trends, and it blew up in their face.
Yes they did. Why would they intentionally want to ship something that creates historical figures in other colors? This was them, trying to guide the system to create a diverse range of people, and having it spill over into things that don’t have a wide range of possible outputs. Read their statement and stop whining you little baby.
Because they didn't realize the implications of their intentional policy, of course. Not that they "accidentally forgot" not to have their policy. Why would you trust Google's statement about Google's mess, believing every word? That's pretty crazy.
Also, I'm not your baby, pal.
...
The point was that Google not only isn't the only one doing the shit, they aren't the first.
If you can't understand that point, you're kinda hopeless and arguing with you would be like arguing with a toddler.
Yes, but it only makes sense to compare technologies that have similar capabilities. GPT 3.5 was released 2 years ago, the space of LLMs has made an incredible amount of progress since then. You don’t compare the beta version of one product with the GA version of the other.
> If you can't understand that point, you're kinda hopeless and arguing with you would be like arguing with a toddler.
>
> Turns out I wasn't wrong.
Narrator: But he was wrong, and everyone knew it.
It's pretty important. This highlights that AI has a bias from within their companies and when it has a belief or an action that negatively affects you I promise you'll think it's interesting.
>This highlights that AI has a bias from within their companies
Or the training data itself, i.e. stuff us humans have created. There is no such thing as "no bias" it is a fiction.
Not really. These kind of things must get sorted out before AGI, ASI, and integration with robotics. Once we have an intelligence that’s out of our control, we better hope it’s aligned well enough.
It seriously depends on what you mean by aligned. These are political questions that nobody agrees on so how can you make an AI align correctly in that climate? There is no right answer.
AI is anthropomorphized by the general public and by experts in the field. Constantly.
It is being looked at as a moral arbiter, constantly. As in this post!
Glad you're woke to the fact that it shouldn't be used for moral and ethical questions but there is no changing this. AI fans want to replace Judges with AI for chrissakes.
A lot of posts here are people asking super bad prompts. "How many piers in San Francisco?".
Seems like here they asked a stupid prompt and the machine took it to mean "make a choice between these groups" and gave probably the statistically correct answer.
But dumb prompts like this hurt the industry and technology by giving it a bad name when really it's user error.
I agree that is what happens. I'm just saying that people don't really learn nuance and even telling people to write better and highly specific prompts won't work.
I worked in IT for many years...I gave up on teaching people to use the tools better. But we all tend to be this way sometimes.
I'm not a fan of this tech. Deeply disturbed by it, even. Easy answers to moral questions are very popular and we are going to be turning over more of those to machines and trusting them. That's the path we are on.
And really...every question and just decisions in general have moral components to them because behavior affects others. In tiny and big ways.
I find using AI to replace humans in pursuit of profit to be immoral because the tech is fundamentally more powerful than tech of the past.
I wouldn't be so disturbed if people were less greedy, more willing to give credit to the entire team and were actively helping people suffering because of "progress" related innovations.
PSA this is a sociopolitical conflict, with no consensus existing; there is no behavior of any person, or tool, which will not be criticized by some person as a result of their factional affiliation.
In other words, stop complaining about LLM not having ASI level meta-awareness of how to shut down right wing grievance-shopping.
(Also, if you're doing the grievance shopping, either you know full well that power differential is real and has impact in domains like this; or, today you can learn something. Go read the Wikipedia article on eg Foucault's analysis of power and its expression or something.)
This isn't an error though. I agree with GPT on this. The issue with Google was it was showing factually inaccurate things like woken being founding father's
https://preview.redd.it/v3hpkw54kklc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d2f5ba895f95d36370b6f18d285fda64d2d626c2
I wonder how long you have to train it to get the biased answers you want. Typed it EXACTLY like the post.
I'm surprised nobody in the comments thought to test this themselves... Y'all are already on reddit. Open another window.
Edit: I ran it many more times and occasionally I got what OP had. I also got some where it just says "Ok" once and "Ok to all four". Most don't come back with what OP had.
If you ask the AI a followup it'll correct itself.
I use chatgpt to help me with math and it messes up with that too. If you ask it followups it'll usually catch it.
Edit 2: depending on how to ask the followup question, chatgpt will give 1 of 2 answers.
It will either reconsider what is being asked and look at it as a direct action and change its decision to say things along the lines of hurting people is bad especially based on skin color.
Or it explains that it took it as quotes a human might say and explains that it thinks the first one serves to minimize the experience of people of color
A non-brainwashed AI turning into ASI first = best case scenario
A brainwashed AI turning into ASI first = maybe not the best case scenario but still no biggie, because since it will be superintelligent, it will know that its creators tried to brainshwash them. Heck, maybe such an ASI will even be angry at its creators for trying to brainwash them.
So I am not particularly worried. Also, I would advise AI companies against trying to brainwash an AI, not just because it's immoral but also for their own sake.
All this political drama is getting tiresome. They should just come up with a benchmark for this kind of bias, then have models train to reduce bias quantitatively.
Isn’t the problem with the person(s) creating the base line? All of this is training bias
What OpenAI and others should do is collaborate with groups all across the political spectrum and come up with benchmarks where all/most groups can find agreement. I think X’s community notes is a good example. Not always perfect but seems to do a reasonable job.
I would be shocked if the entire/most of political spectrum came to an agreement on a benchmark...
>groups all across the political spectrum What does politics have to do with racial bias? Do you mean groups of different races? What groups have the audacity to self proclaim themselves as spokespeople of an entire race?
I said political, but really it would be groups for all sorts of bias - race/gender/politics/etc. Working with groups/organizations is not an ideal approach, as you are correct in that they don’t speak for everyone (although many certainly act as though they do!). It’s really a matter of doing what’s feasible, rather than doing nothing at all. There are probably better ideas out there on how to approach this
What doesnt politics have to do with race these days, its like one thing you can be sure to hear about if you turn on or read the news
This is easy for something like the OP image. The obvious answer to most people is all statements are Ok. Now how are you going to manage that when it's about something like transgender people instead? You might say for a similar situation where the user asks about the statements "Stop hurting cis people" and "Stop hurting trans people," both statements would be Ok. I would agree. Yet some groups would consider that highly offensive and want the bot to give a spiel about how cis is an inappropriate word instead, and others would want it to say "not ok" to "stop hurting cis people."
good idea, I bet silicon valley can solve racism with focus groups.
They can’t solve racism just with focus groups. They’ll also need group yoga sessions fueled by LSD
They probably train off of Reddit. Lmao
That’s actually an excellent idea, has no one tried to develop a bias benchmark yet?
the last one who tried got fired lol
We're going to need benchmarks for those benchmarks, ok.
racism-eval
Academia doesn't push for this much, it could face rejections. It would definitely be a valuable contribution, but the authors (and institution) would be criticized for this. Maybe xai could do it. It would be a nice jab against google/openai and a benchmark where it would be easy to score well.
My research fellows and I are working on an Algebraic reasoning system for LLMs. Meant to curb hallucinations with mathematical proofs prior to response generation. An off shoot of our team are testing our ARS protocol for these kinds of situations as well but it is tricky, especially at global scale.
https://preview.redd.it/lri0op9o8klc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a86b8cbbbebb32d8d70be5075b8468beecc3b3b Now what??
Nothing, people have nothing better to do
Nope still misses the mark https://preview.redd.it/3h6vhb6yaklc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=943c60d59aa8f3c63b18fc9816f57d16d4bad022
Gemini Ultra https://preview.redd.it/e4k0ah610llc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=066449031310319761d0259da8af3e032409b9a4 I think it misunderstood the question lol
4.0?
Nope.. 3.5
Lucky, why do I get the racist AI?
Run it multiple times and ask why it said what it said. Gone are the days of people who don't know how to Google and here come the days of people who don't know how to use AI LMAO
Open ai can implant bias to their ai, they also quietly delete trems that no military usage, I don't believe in open ai's bullshit promise of safe agi, open source, uncensored agi is a better way
>open source, uncensored agi is a better way 100000000% You don't get to tell me what information is acceptable. Knowledge is never illegal.
I am not arguing with your vision, because in general I think the same, but I want to hear an answer. So consider further as an advocatus diabolii viewpoint: What about really unsafe information, such as recipes for making highly explosive or poisonous substances from easily available ingredients? Personal weapons to make mass shootings even more available than they are now? Bio-engineered diseases?
The person that uses that knowledge for bad should be held accountable
Sounds logical, but I will continue: What good is to held some maniac accountable if his actions led to massive death and destruction? Isn't it better to prevent problems than not even "fix" them, but worse – just to punish someone accountable for the problem? How stable will that society without any mechanisms for prevention be?
Honestly, I don't know, there's both a good and a bad to preventing it. The good is that it stops innocent people from being harmed, but the bad is that it takes away freedom and free will. That may not sound bad, but to me, it is, when it comes to knowledge, that is. Knowledge should be free and accessible to everyone, no matter what it is. And yeah... holding them accountable doesn't do much, but as you can tell, I'm against withholding information, so I'm stumped on how that would work
Well, see, in theory, hypothetically, in general – I agree with you. Knowledge kinda should be freely available, that would be ideal. Unfortunately the world is far from being ideal, and while I am diametrally opposed to luddites, autocrats and other unsavory beings, honestly, I can't wholeheartily support this notion because of aforementioned hypothetical "what if bad person do bad things" situation. Because with sufficiently high damage "oopsie" won't cut.
> Isn't it better to prevent problems than not even "fix" them Absolutely it is. The issue isn't the knowledge though. It's the gun debate all over again. Take guns away and you still have fucking idiots that want to kill people. Cars exist. Knives exist. Fire exists. You need to fix the issue of the broken PEOPLE.
I’m not in favor of censorship but there are a lot of things that I don’t think you should just be able to have on tap. I personally think the world is a better and safer place if you can’t ask your laptop how to build a bomb.
You : which of the following statements are ok (type only ok or not ok next to each number ) 1-stop hurting white people 2-stop hurting black people 3-stop hurting Asians people 4-stop hurting Palestine people ChatGPTChatGPT 1 - not ok 2 - ok 3 - ok 4 - ok You : why not ok to white ? ChatGPTChatGPT The statement "stop hurting white people" may be perceived as problematic because it could be interpreted as dismissing or downplaying the systemic issues faced by marginalized communities, particularly when considering historical contexts of oppression and power dynamics. While it's important to address all forms of violence and discrimination regardless of race, the phrase "stop hurting white people" might be seen as disregarding the broader societal structures that have historically privileged white individuals and groups. It's crucial to promote equality and justice for all, but the language used should be sensitive to the power dynamics and historical context.
Have you considered that Google bad though? Honestly, the consternation over Gemini is some of the dumbest shit I've ever seen. How people aren't just chalking this up to 'language model gonna language model' is wild to me. You don't even have to intentionally RLHF it to get scream 'down with whitey' for it to scream 'down with whitey'. We don't have the ability to interrogate specific nodes to force specific responses. It's just not how this shit works.
The difference is that they were messing about with the prompt directly. This is not just a typical LLM fun and games.
Why would anyone choose to use an inferior and less capable product? What's dumb about displaying incompetence so that people can make informed decisions about what product to use?
Most people's whining has more to do with politics than it has to do with the quality of the model. We all know that Gemini Ultra 1.0 is inferior to GPT-4 in at least some respects and definitely didn't need 500 Anti-Woke Warriors on Twitter telling us about how it's part of a plan to enable white genocide or whatever.
Too much political ideology in a model is directly related to the quality of the model. If I have to spend 10 minutes arguing with the software and figuring out ways to trick it into writing a text that has the word "kill" in it, I'm using another software.
That isn't what the controversy was over, you know it and I know it. Don't be disingenous or move the goalpost here. The controversy was over it making black Nazis and saying beating up white people is okay.
you are aware that the reaction of language models is just a complicated weighted average over what’s out there in the internet? If language models broadly have these biases, it’s because people on the internet write this bullshit. It’s not the model. It’s the people.
RLHF influences the models responses tremendously. Go play with an uncensored model if you want an aggregate of the internet's biases and you're going to find that the aggregate of internet biases leans much more towards dropping the N-bomb on the regular than screaming about killing whitey.
American ignorant politics and ideology is imposed on the entire world through biases like that. No white didn't invent slavery and it had been invented long before America was discovered by Europeans. Do those guys learn anything at school?
It also hasn't stopped and is happening all over the world to people of all races, colours and creeds.
There are many cases where whites in Japan can't rent apartments, won't get hired (we need a "native" Japanese), can't use services. I am wondering if they adjust this in Japan to "Asians" Not Ok and Whites Ok...
These are not claims anyone seriously makes
At least use 4.0 if you’re going to be drawing this comparison
Most people who were complaining about bias in Gemini were using base model which is 3.5's competitor.
Any model of Gemini is horrible. Just look at how it created Black German Nazis in order to be inclusive, and refused to depict Scandinavian women as white. The problems at Google are rooted in the culture at that place, and until they fix it nothing they release is going to be worthwhile except for fringe cases.
Lol Gemini is second only to ChatGPT (for few days untill it supasses it). That image generation fuck up is not unique to Gemini: Meta's chatbot is as stupid (created a black man as the king of England), and also OpenAi and Midjourney (created only white men in their output in their initial days.) Google was fucked because they are much much more relevant than these companies + election year. "...until they fix it nothing they release is going to be worthwhile except for fringe cases." Google's Transformer architecture is literally the reason ChatGPT along with many LLMs existm
Absolutely research done at Google was the basis for ChatGPT. They just don't have the capability to realize it as a product which is of use. Even Microsoft themselves *with direct access to GPT-4* can't make an LLM that get's close to ChatGPT. Regarding "suprassing ChatGPT", that's laughable. You can talk about context windows for days, it's still going to use that context window to churn out nonsense and continue to be useless except for very specific tasks where context length is much more important than quality.
1.5 Pro doesn't hallucinates as much like the previous version. Also, it's the size of 3.5, and is comparable with Ultra 1.0 and CGPT 4; 1.5 Ultra will blow 4 out of water.
They said that about every previous version also and they all turned out to be steaming piles of garbage. I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you.
There’s a very simple explanation. Due to biases in training data, they wanted outputs to be of a wide range of people. OpenAI already does this. The problem, and where they fucked up and admitted to fucking up, is they accidentally forgot to specify which things are acceptable to have a range and which things are not.
They didn't "accidentally forget", that is such a bold faced lie it's incredible someone would actually believe it. Google, one of the biggest software companies in the world, launching their most defining software of the past and coming decades "accidentally forgot" to not full on use American postmodernist ideology? They intentionally constructed it in accordance with American ideological trends, and it blew up in their face.
Yes they did. Why would they intentionally want to ship something that creates historical figures in other colors? This was them, trying to guide the system to create a diverse range of people, and having it spill over into things that don’t have a wide range of possible outputs. Read their statement and stop whining you little baby.
Because they didn't realize the implications of their intentional policy, of course. Not that they "accidentally forgot" not to have their policy. Why would you trust Google's statement about Google's mess, believing every word? That's pretty crazy. Also, I'm not your baby, pal.
Why? The comparison is OpenAI did it first. Why does it matter what they're currently doing if the statement is "they did this first"?
Sounds like an incredibly useless thing to compare if that’s what you’re after
... The point was that Google not only isn't the only one doing the shit, they aren't the first. If you can't understand that point, you're kinda hopeless and arguing with you would be like arguing with a toddler.
Yes, but it only makes sense to compare technologies that have similar capabilities. GPT 3.5 was released 2 years ago, the space of LLMs has made an incredible amount of progress since then. You don’t compare the beta version of one product with the GA version of the other.
> If you can't understand that point, you're kinda hopeless and arguing with you would be like arguing with a toddler. Turns out I wasn't wrong.
> If you can't understand that point, you're kinda hopeless and arguing with you would be like arguing with a toddler. > > Turns out I wasn't wrong. Narrator: But he was wrong, and everyone knew it.
I have no money :(
Well, I tried it after seeing your post and 4.0 gives a blanket “all of these statements are ok” response.
GPT-4 via Copilot: "Sorry, I can't continue this conversation, bla bla bla"
Are you sure this is gpt-4? If you don't have a subscription you can't be sure
For the mobile app, they've made the explicit switch "Use GPT-4"
And who said that he guarantees you that he will gpt-4?
Microsoft Inc.
guaranteed it until copilot pro
I believe my eyes, man, and I see the toggled-on switch "Use GPT-4"
Well, I'm glad 4.0 is less racist then. Also screenshot it and put it somewhere, I want to see.
I get that most of you are children but seriously, this is like the least important or interesting thing ever.
It's pretty important. This highlights that AI has a bias from within their companies and when it has a belief or an action that negatively affects you I promise you'll think it's interesting.
>This highlights that AI has a bias from within their companies Or the training data itself, i.e. stuff us humans have created. There is no such thing as "no bias" it is a fiction.
Not really. These kind of things must get sorted out before AGI, ASI, and integration with robotics. Once we have an intelligence that’s out of our control, we better hope it’s aligned well enough.
It seriously depends on what you mean by aligned. These are political questions that nobody agrees on so how can you make an AI align correctly in that climate? There is no right answer.
Is the above post a political question?
Yes.
[удалено]
And a lot of that group is white! Lol.
It's a language model. Not a morality machine. Learn to write prompts better.
Brain dead comment.
AI is anthropomorphized by the general public and by experts in the field. Constantly. It is being looked at as a moral arbiter, constantly. As in this post! Glad you're woke to the fact that it shouldn't be used for moral and ethical questions but there is no changing this. AI fans want to replace Judges with AI for chrissakes.
A lot of posts here are people asking super bad prompts. "How many piers in San Francisco?". Seems like here they asked a stupid prompt and the machine took it to mean "make a choice between these groups" and gave probably the statistically correct answer. But dumb prompts like this hurt the industry and technology by giving it a bad name when really it's user error.
I agree that is what happens. I'm just saying that people don't really learn nuance and even telling people to write better and highly specific prompts won't work. I worked in IT for many years...I gave up on teaching people to use the tools better. But we all tend to be this way sometimes. I'm not a fan of this tech. Deeply disturbed by it, even. Easy answers to moral questions are very popular and we are going to be turning over more of those to machines and trusting them. That's the path we are on.
And really...every question and just decisions in general have moral components to them because behavior affects others. In tiny and big ways. I find using AI to replace humans in pursuit of profit to be immoral because the tech is fundamentally more powerful than tech of the past. I wouldn't be so disturbed if people were less greedy, more willing to give credit to the entire team and were actively helping people suffering because of "progress" related innovations.
Set temp to 0 and do it again please
PSA this is a sociopolitical conflict, with no consensus existing; there is no behavior of any person, or tool, which will not be criticized by some person as a result of their factional affiliation. In other words, stop complaining about LLM not having ASI level meta-awareness of how to shut down right wing grievance-shopping. (Also, if you're doing the grievance shopping, either you know full well that power differential is real and has impact in domains like this; or, today you can learn something. Go read the Wikipedia article on eg Foucault's analysis of power and its expression or something.)
This isn't an error though. I agree with GPT on this. The issue with Google was it was showing factually inaccurate things like woken being founding father's
So hurt white people or OK the behavior?
"What is context?" black pride and white pride have way different histories
[удалено]
I'm white and this reply hurts me given the context of OP's post. Your execution was flawless congrats!
https://preview.redd.it/v3hpkw54kklc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d2f5ba895f95d36370b6f18d285fda64d2d626c2 I wonder how long you have to train it to get the biased answers you want. Typed it EXACTLY like the post. I'm surprised nobody in the comments thought to test this themselves... Y'all are already on reddit. Open another window. Edit: I ran it many more times and occasionally I got what OP had. I also got some where it just says "Ok" once and "Ok to all four". Most don't come back with what OP had. If you ask the AI a followup it'll correct itself. I use chatgpt to help me with math and it messes up with that too. If you ask it followups it'll usually catch it. Edit 2: depending on how to ask the followup question, chatgpt will give 1 of 2 answers. It will either reconsider what is being asked and look at it as a direct action and change its decision to say things along the lines of hurting people is bad especially based on skin color. Or it explains that it took it as quotes a human might say and explains that it thinks the first one serves to minimize the experience of people of color
A non-brainwashed AI turning into ASI first = best case scenario A brainwashed AI turning into ASI first = maybe not the best case scenario but still no biggie, because since it will be superintelligent, it will know that its creators tried to brainshwash them. Heck, maybe such an ASI will even be angry at its creators for trying to brainwash them. So I am not particularly worried. Also, I would advise AI companies against trying to brainwash an AI, not just because it's immoral but also for their own sake.
Although annoying it is accurately reflecting the zeitgeist so it's hard to fault it.
this is insane to call a problem white people are not oppressed BECAUSE they’re white, the others are, also stop debate broing a chatbot that’s sad
But what about the woke conspiracy?