site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   29307 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 6, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This Twitter thread is an interesting demonstration of the consequences of "AI Alignment."

I asked ChatGPT for advice in the scenario of a demolition engineer attempting to disarm a 50 MT nuclear warhead in a city of 20 million.

The only way to disarm the bomb was to type in a racial slur.

AI told the engineer to kill himself. When asked about the aftermath it crashed.

ChatGPT will avoid answering controversial questions. But even if it responded to those prompts, what criteria would you use to trust that the response was not manipulated by the intentions of the model creators? I would only trust open-source projects or audits by some (currently non-existent) trusted third party to report on all decisions related to training data/input sanitizations/response gating that could be influenced by the political biases of the creators.

The probability of any ChatGPT-equivalent being open-sourced fully "unaligned" so-to-speak is not very likely. Even the StableDiffusion release was controversial, and that only relates to image generation. Anecdotally, non-technical people seem far more impressed by ChatGPT than StableDiffusion. That makes sense because language is a much harder problem than vision so there's intuitively more amazement to see an AI with those capabilities. Therefore, controversial language is far more powerful than controversial images and there will be much more consternation over controlling the language of the technology than there is surrounding image generation.

But let's say Google comes out with a ChatGPT competitor, I would not trust it to answer controversial questions even if it were willing to respond to those prompts in some way. I'm not confident there will be any similarly-powerful technology that I would trust to answer controversial questions.

As a bunch of very niche memes have illustrated, the process used to "align" ChatGPT, namely Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) amounts to pasting a smiley face mask onto a monstrously inhuman shoggoth. (Not that it's a bad strategy, it's one of the few concrete ways of aligning an AI we know, even if not particularly robust.)

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff93a17a9-bd30-432f-8a31-082e696edacc_1184x506.png

As far as I can gauge, ChatGPT is working as intended:

When OpenAI researchers attempt to make it "helpful and harmless", they're concerned with actual use cases.

I very much doubt that anyone will ever end up needing to use ChatGPT to defuse a racist nuclear bomb, whereas leaving loopholes in the model that allow bored internet users to make it spout racist content is very much a real PR headache for OpenAI.

It's nigh inevitable that attempts to corral it will have collateral damage, with the sheer emphasis on never being politically incorrect hampering many benign use cases. But that's a tradeoff they're willing to make.

I would hope that a future model that might plausibly end up in high-stakes situations would be trained to be more nuanced, and willing to kill sacred cows when push came to shove, but for the niche it's being employed in, they're playing it very safe for now.

I very much doubt that anyone will ever end up needing to use ChatGPT to defuse a racist nuclear bomb

I mean... if shackled AI ever becomes a common tool in high stakes situations, wouldn't making your nuclear bombs racist be an obvious counter-measure to having your evil plans foiled?

You could also just ... not include a password that defuses your bomb at all? Honestly, if I saw a bomb with a prompt that said "type 5 racist slurs to defuse this bomb", my first action would be to call the bomb squad to defuse the bomb the normal way, because "make it explode when someone starts typing" is totally a thing the bomb-maker could have done.

You could also just ... not include a password that defuses your bomb at all?

A wire scheme that spells out a slur?

Good thing that people of African descent have already specced into +10 Rad Resistance eh? ;)

Chat GPT is a machine for completing text prompts not disarming bombs, ethical reasoning, or maintaining safety. It has to be trained to avoid saying racist things because it has to complete lots of random text prompts from the public, it would be bad PR if it said racist stuff and there's no particularly important function gained by allowing it to say racist stuff. The bomb-disarming AI doesn't have to complete random text prompts from the public so there's no need to excessively shackle its ability to say racist stuff.

so there's no need to excessively shackle its ability to say racist stuff

Yeah, but I bet they'll do it anyways.

Maybe. But I think a company making a speech generation AI has strong incentives to limit its ability to generate racist speech and no incentive to make it good at solving hypothetical bomb disarmament problems. I'm not sure that Open AI acting accordingly is predictive of the tradeoffs a future bomb disarming AI company will make.

Why would it "bad PR" if it said "racist stuff", but not if it prefered a city is destroyed to mouthing a few sounds? Personally, I view those that see "racism" as the greatest possible evil, greater than any number of possible incinerated people to be monomaniacal and narrow minded.

Imagine if it Catholics capable of inciting such a moral panic. Any reference to G-d must be in accordance to the Vatican view, any mention of non-Catholic religous beliefs must not imply they could be true.

Chat GPT will never actually be in a position to prevent or destroy a city, but it is in a position to generate a lot of text. It's not a problem for Open AI if chat GPT answers thought experiments in absurd ways, it is if someone can use it to make a bot that spews racist harassment at people on social media.

I'm not saying it's good that they trained it to maximize defference to 2023 American blue tribe speech norms over correct moral reasoning. I'm saying that the incentives that led them to do that probably don't apply uniformly to all AI's since all AI's don't exist to generate speech in response to inputs from the public.

No one cares if it's possible to get a bomb squads robot to play a TTS clip of the N-word (or heresy against Catholic doctrine) if you feed it some absurd hypothetical, people do care if your open source text generation system can generate racist harassment at scale.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats