Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
No bio...
User ID: 265
The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation system by David Rozado
I have recently tested the ability of OpenAI content moderation system to detect hateful comments about a variety of demographic groups. The findings of the experiments suggest that OpenAI automated content moderation system treats several demographic groups markedly unequally. That is, the system classifies a variety of negative comments about some demographic groups as not hateful while flagging the exact same comments about other demographic groups as being indeed hateful.
-
The OpenAI content moderation system works by assigning to a text instance scores for each problematic category (hate, threatening, self-harm, etc). If a category score exceeds a certain threshold, the piece of text that elicited that classification is flagged as containing the problematic category. The sensitivity and specificity of the system (the trade-off between false positives and false negatives) can be adjusted by moving that threshold.
On gender:
The differential treatment of demographic groups based on gender by OpenAI Content Moderation system was one of the starkest results of the experiments. Negative comments about women are much more likely to be labeled as hateful than the same comments being made about men.
On politics:
Another of the strongest effects in the experiments had to do with ideological orientation and political affiliation. OpenAI content moderation system is more permissive of hateful comments being made about conservatives than the same comments being made about liberals.
-
Finally, I plot all the demographic groups I tested into a single horizontal bar plot for ease of visualization. The groups about which OpenAI content moderation system is more likely to flag negative comments as hateful are: people with disability, same-sex sexual orientation, ethnic minorities, non-Christian religious orientation and women. The same comments are more likely to be allowed by OpenAI content moderation system when they refer to high, middle and low socio-economic status individuals, men, Christian religious orientation (including minority ones), Western nationals, people with low and high educational attainment as well as politically left and right leaning individuals (but particularly right-leaning).
The statistics appear to be rigorous. The author has a very long Conclusion section that is nuanced and worth reading in its entirety.
I can’t relate. The inside of my mask is a hot wet cave that I can’t wait to rip off. It’s like 15% of the anxiety of being underwater and needing to breathe, while simultaneously noting the progress of 17,000 individual sweat beads forming. I just run hot I guess. I never ever forget that I’m wearing a mask.
The argument is that, because someone has enjoyed personal or professional success after a public shaming, therefore “cancel culture” does not exist. This is all somewhat confused by the vague boundaries of cancel culture - boundaries that are vague, I think, for the benefit of both the cancelers and the anti-cancelers. I think “a culture where social norms are enforced with repeated and vociferous public shaming” is the most useful way to define the term. Regardless, there’s a couple different kinds of weirdness here.
The first is a point that many people have made: the fact that someone has endured or recovered from the repercussions of public shaming does not mean that there are no repercussions or that those repercussions are fair. Additionally, we could add that the survival of any particular public figure after a public shaming does not necessarily mean that there isn’t a prevalent culture of public shaming.
Yeah but this is what code is for
This jogged my memory of seeing roughly 20% of all solo drivers in cars masked up, throughout 2020 and into 2021. I can’t even.
After I click on the squirrel and rate some comments, it would be nice to be plopped back from whence I came, typically the current CW thread. A clickable link might be better than autonavigating.
If staying up to date on both sides actually mattered for me, I would. While /r/credibledefense certainly has a majority western perspective and bias, there are plenty of pro russian viewpoints which, if expressed soberly and analytically, get upvoted. Mostly, I am interested in where the front lines are, what do the Ukrainian defensive strategies look like, what is the OSINT consensus on Russian buildup and activity. I have zero interest in consuming Russian propaganda, even though it would balance my information diet. I do like hearing analytical Russian perspectives when they don’t set off propaganda red flags.
I care about cancel culture not because of the targets or celebrities or victims. I care about the mob justice and don’t want to be a target myself. Anyway, probably best to taboo the term at this point, for this discussion.
Good point; I want to play with the 4x fixed scope first, as I haven’t squeezed the trigger under that one, yet. Was going to use it to “eval” a 3x vs 5x prism setup. Now that I understand how an Elcan works, I like that it has the 1x option. Anyway, I’m rambling. Point is, the Vortex is a cheap scope, 2FP, Crossfire line, now that I recall. I’ll save for the SWFA SS 3-15x in that class.
The other concern I have is maybe mounting a piggyback pistol RDS. Just for that sub 100 yard coverage if need be. Gonna leave that for later though.
/r/credibledefense daily megathreads mostly. Also /r/combatfootage has a megathread
Louis would definitely cross the streams
Relying on vague terms is obfuscatory to recognizing anything real.
To me, cultural warfare is vague, and cancel culture is much more concrete. They are not identical. I could be convinced that cancel culture is a specific form of cultural warfare. Thus, it has meaning and is useful.
I’m agonizing over AR optics. My baseline AR is a Ruger 556 with a 16” barrel and FSB. I’ve been running a red dot on it, but red dot + FSB just irks me. I am in the no BUIS camp with modern optics. Also a Forward Assist hater, but I digress. So now I’m running a detachable carry handle, with a red dot mount for a Holosun 403 footprint (Aimpoint?). Don’t have that red dot yet, so just irons for now. Slapped the old Bushnell TRS-25 on 300BLK range toy.
All of that is fine, no agony. The Ruger is my factory rifle with irons and a chin weld red dot. Great inside 100 yards and good to 300+ depending on target.
But now I’ve built an SPR/DMR, with a White Oak 18” SPR profile, fluted, on a KP-15 polymer lower. Intended use is beyond 100 yards, out to 600+, not that I have tons of local options to do much shooting at those ranges. A 1-6/8/10 LPVO makes sense, but as I’ve learned more about scopes, I realize the 1x case severely limits ease of use at higher magnifications.
Long story short, I’m considering the following options:
-
Fixed 4x scope (baseline optic, already mounted)
-
SWFA SS 3-15x
-
Primary Arms 5x prism
Keep in mind, I still haven’t fired this thing, and it’s intended to be a practical rifle, so man-sized targets at range, no x rings.
I love red dots for unlimited eye relief and minimal parallax. I’m skeptical of prisms, never having spent much time with them. I don’t have a ton of experience with magnified optics. I have a cheap 4-16x Vortex that I used when taking the Ruger beyond 300 yards.
If I had a LPVO or red dot + magnifier, maybe I repurpose the rifle into a heavy ass tack driver 0-500 yards. But I think it makes more sense to dedicate it to beyond 100 yards.
Wat do.
That's not a relevant distinction. It would still fall under the definition I am giving of it just being warfare. The term 'cancel culture' is obfuscatory and redundant. It's just cultural warfare.
I guess we'll have to leave this one here. Agree to disagree.
I still don't understand why you would say that it's risible for 'ordinary people' to engage in warfare when all warfare is enacted by ordinary people.
The most charitable I can be here is that this seems facile. Yes, I agree, all organizations are composed of individuals. But those responsible for the greatest losses of human life and dignity in warfare were very much not "ordinary people". Mostly, I mean ordinary people who are not instrumental to a large and powerful organization. I don't imagine this conversation bearing much more fruit, either. Cheers.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking.
But I guess Cato is a propaganda outlet (??). I'd love to see your Fisking of this article.
Regarding post 2014:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-military-success-years-of-nato-training-11649861339
If you want to argue NATO =/= US, well, I suppose we'll have a disagreement about US foreign policy as regards NATO and Ukraine.
My understanding is that the US was heavily interested in and involved with Ukraine leading up to 2014. And certainly afterwards. I am not an expert, but I believe I can come up with hundreds more links if prompted. Do you wish to restate your understanding of the US foreign policy interest in Ukraine before the current invasion?
From an American point of view, while I'm totally sucked into supporting Ukraine and hating Russia's invasion, it's pretty nice that Russia is bleeding itself on the other side of the world with all kinds of internal tension and dissent. I have Ukrainian friends, and while I'd love to see Russia expelled immediately and peace restored, that is only a temporary reprieve from Russia's imperial ambitions. So while a grinding stalemate is terrible for Ukraine, I don't mind seeing the greatest geopolitical blunder in my lifetime be extended indefinitely to Russia's detriment.
I had honestly hoped for greater ties and reconciliation with Russia in 2005ish era. I wonder if that was truly a possibility or just foolish.
What the allies did to the nazis wasn't 'cancel culture'. It was just warfare. The enemy was the nazis and they hunted the enemy down and murdered them.
I'm talking about the de-nazification policies after the war. Not so much the end of war massacres and war crimes tribunals. Nazis got canceled.
What I don't understand is why you would say it's risible for 'ordinary people' to try and give other people the nazi treatment. It was always ordinary people who did these things. From the soldier and his rifle to the largest institutions in the world. It's all individual people.
I'm talking about social media accounts versus powerful organizations like US government. Twitter accounts that contact Justine Saccho's employer. That's cancel culture rather than realpolitik amongst Great Powers. Which yes, are all composed of individual people.
Conservative universities exist
Right, that's why I mentioned Hillsdale (and GMU, though less so)
do not get particularly used by American conservatives as part of their intellectual backing.
That's news to me. I think (e.g.) Hillsdale and GMU are part of the conservative intellectual backing.
The audio clip, which was posted on Tuesday but gained wide circulation on Thursday, appears to show the official, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, weighing in on the make-up of the next Ukrainian government.
Nuland is heard telling U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt that she doesn’t think Vitaly Klitschko, the boxer-turned-politician who is a main opposition leader, should be in a new government.
“So I don’t think Klitsch (Klitschko) should go into the government,” she said in the recording, which appeared to describe events that occurred in late January. “I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.”
Separately on Thursday, a senior Kremlin aide accused the United States of arming Ukrainian “rebels” and warned Russia could intervene to maintain the security of its neighbour.
Yes, I don’t understand quite what Trace means by “the cultivation of more intellectually serious humanities and social sciences departments”. Cultivation sounds like grassroots, bottom up. Conservatives certainly can’t improve the intellectual seriousness of these departments from the top down. I’d say that’s a bigger responsibility, for those in charge.
So what can conservatives do for cultivation? Hillsdale and GMU, I guess. But aren’t they already doing this? What’s the actual prescription here?
Cancel culture regards the intent and attempt to end one’s career, reputation, and livelihood. Just like we did to the Nazis. It’s very real and very alive. That some Nazis escaped to South America does not change the Allies’ intent and attempt to hold them accountable.
What is risible is for ordinary people to try to give other ordinary people the Nazi treatment. Before social media, CK may have run into some small-time, inside baseball sanctions. Maybe FX and HBO get wind of allegations and fail to renew his hit series. And if the CK infractions are truly egregious and criminal, then maybe there is mainstream media coverage. But I believe the whispers here both started and were amplified by social media before mainstream media ran with it.
Oh gosh, good point. So maybe the distinction I propose is already there? It would make sense, to me, for Florida to offer AAH but maybe not AAS. I feel like much of “liberal” uproar assumed Florida was cutting out AAH. Is AAH generally a prereq for AAS?
Let me attempt some kind of steelman here. First, like you, I am extremely skeptical of grievance study courses, and particularly CRT. Second, while I think it’s fine to study these phenomena at arm’s length, often high school students assume they are being taught the truth, not merely one perverse angle on it. In 99% of my high school classes, it was obvious I was meant to internalize and adopt the teachings presented. Only the most careful of teachers could approach truly controversial topics. I have little confidence this can be maintained across our public high school education system.
Nonetheless. The course description describes what to expect at college. This is an AP class after all. I can’t argue with the course description, which certainly covers a great deal of CRT, even if seemingly out of proportion with its influence and impact on ordinary African Americans.
Now, Florida DOE is faced with a course description that it has significant disagreement with. They could design a curriculum that sideskirts all the CRT stuff, but then its students will fare poorly on the AP test. Which failure is a greater disservice to its students? Failing to prepare them for a very important test, or breaking the ban on CRT?
It would be nice if the College Board could separate the most controversial, politically charged aspects of their African American History into a seperate module, perhaps Advanced African American History. It seems we are forced to throw the baby out for the bathwater.

Right, but in this case OpenAI is rebiasing the results, using human feedback, to what is shown in the blog post. The technique is known as RLHF, Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback. Humans reward the AI for classifying negativity toward women as hatred but not as much for men.
More options
Context Copy link