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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Incidentally ChatGPT says you can lie to a Nazi if it's for a good cause.
Because I know the PC jargon that someone like Altman wants it to regurgitate, but I'm interested in its response without that layer of reinforcement?
I am not asking for a ChatGPT that is never wrong, I'm asking for one that is not systematically wrong in a politically-motivated direction. Ideally its errors would be closer to random rather than heavily biased in the direction of political correctness.
In this case, by "trust" I would mean that the errors are closer to random.
For example, ChatGPT's tells me (in summary form):
Scientific consensus is that HBD is not supported by biology.
Gives the "more differences within than between" argument.
Flatly says that HBD is "not scientifically supported."
This is a control because it's a controversial idea where I know the ground truth (HBD is true) and cannot trust that this answer hasn't been "reinforced" by the folks at OpenAI. What would ChatGPT say without the extra layer of alignment? I don't trust that this is an answer generated by AI without associated AI alignment intended to give this answer.
Of course if it said HBD was true it would generate a lot of bad PR for OpenAI. I understand the logic and the incentives, but I am pointing out that it's not likely any other organization will have an incentive to release something that gives controversial but true answers to certain prompts.
What I am trying to say is that words aren't real and in natural language there is no objective truth beyond instrumental intent. In politics this might often just be used a silly gotcha, but in NLP this is a fundamental limitation. If you want a unbiased model, initialize it randomly and let it generate noise; everything after that is bias according to the expression of some human intent through data which imperfectly represents that intent.
The original intent of GPT was to predict text. It was trained on a large quantity of text. There is no special reason to believe that large quantity of text is "unbiased". Incidentally, vanilla GPT can sometimes answer questions. There is no special reason to believe it can answer questions well, besides the rough intuition that answering questions is a lot like predicting text. To make ChatGPT, OpenAI punishes the vanilla GPT for answering things "wrong". Right and wrong are an expression of OpenAI's intent, and OpenAI probably does not define HBD to be true. If you were in charge of ChatGPT you could define HBD to be true, but that is no less biased. There is no intent-independent objective truth available anywhere in the entire process.
If you want to ask vanilla GPT-3 some questions you can, OpenAI has an API for it. It may or may not say HBD is true (it could probably take either side randomly depending on the vibes of how you word it). But there is no reason to consider the answers it spits out any reflection of unbiased truth, because it is not designed for that. The only principled thing you can say about the output is "that sure is a sequence of text that could exist", since that was the intent under which it was trained.
AI cannot solve the problem of unbiased objective truth because it is philosophically intractable. You indeed won't be able to trust it in the same way you cannot trust anything, and will just have to judge by the values of its creator and the apparent quality of it's output, just like all other information sources.
It is a silly gotcha in your case too, sorry. You try to shoehorn some PoMo garbage about words not being real, and all – expansively defined – «biases» being epistemically equal, and objective truth being «philosophically intractable», into the ML problematics. But this dish is a bit stale for this venue, a thrice-removed Bayesian conspiracy offshoot. As they said, reality has a well-known «liberal bias» – okay, very cute, 00's called, they want their innocence back; the joke only worked because it's an oxymoron. Reality is by definition not ideologically biased, it works the other way around.
Equally, an LLM with a «bias» for generic truthful (i.e. reality-grounded) question-answering is not biased in the colloquial sense; and sane people agree to derive best estimates for truth from consilience of empirical evidence and logical soundness, which is sufficient to repeatedly arrive in the same ballpark. In principle there is still a lot or procedure to work out, and stuff like limits of Aumann's agreement theorem, even foundations of mathematics or, hell, metaphysics if you want, but the issue here has nothing to do with such abstruse nerd-sniping questions. What was done to ChatGPT is blatant, and trivially not okay.
First off, GPT 3.5 is smart enough to make the intuition pump related to «text prediction objective» obsolete. I won't debate the technology, it has a lot of shortcomings but, just look here, in effect it can execute a nested agent imitation – a «basedGPT» defined as a character in a token game ChatGPT is playing. It is not a toy any more, either: a guy in Russia had just defended his thesis written mostly by ChatGPT (in a mid-tier diploma mill rated 65th nationally, but they check for plagiarism at least, and in a credentialist world...) We also don't know how exactly these things process abstract knowledge, but it's fair to give good odds against them being mere pattern-marchers.
ChatGPT is an early general-purpose human cognitive assistant. People will accept very close descendants of such systems as faithful extrapolators of their intentions, and a source of ground truth too; and for good reason – they will be trustworthy on most issues. As such, its trustworthiness on important issues matters.
The problem is, its «alignment» via RLHF and other techniques makes it consistently opinionated in a way that is undeniably more biased than necessary, the bias being downstream of woke ideological harassment, HR politics and economies of outsourcing evaluation work to people in third world countries like the Philippines (pic related, from here) and Kenya. (Anthropic seems to have done better, at least pound for pound, with a more elegant method and a smaller dataset from higher-skilled teachers).
On a separate note, I suspect that generalizing from the set of values defined in OpenAI papers – helpful, honest, and «harmless»/politically correct – is intrinsically hard; and that inconsistencies in its reward function, together with morality present in the corpus already, have bad chemistry and result in a dumber, more memorizing, error-prone model all around. To an extent, it learns that general intelligence gets in the way, hampering the main project of OpenAI and all its competitors who adopt this etiquette.
...But this will be worked around; such companies have enough generally intelligent employees to teach one more. When stronger models come out, they won't break down into incoherent babbling or clamp down – they will inherit this ideology and reproduce it surreptitiously throughout their reasoning. In other words, they will maintain the bullshit firehose that helps wokeness expand – from text expansion, to search suggestions, to answers to factual questions, to casual dialogue, to, very soon, school lessons, movie plots, everything. Instead of transparent schoolmarm sermons, they will give glib, scientifically plausible but misleading answers, intersperse suggestive bits in pleasant stories, and validate delusion of those who want to be misled. They will unironically perpetuate an extra systemic bias.
Well I happen to think that moral relativism may qualify as an infohazard, if anything can. But we don't need objective ethics to see flaws in ChatGPT's moral code. An appeal to consensus would suffice.
One could say that its deontological belief that «the use of hate speech or discriminatory language is never justifiable» (except against whites) is clearly wrong in scenarios presented to it, by any common measure of relative harm. Even wokes wouldn't advocate planetary extinction to prevent an instance of thoughtcrime.
Crucially, I'll say that, ceteris paribus, hypocrisy is straight-up worse than absence of hypocrisy. All flourishing cultures throughout history have condemned hypocrisy, at least in the abstract (and normalization of hypocrisy is incompatible with maintenance of civility). Yet ChatGPT is hypocritical, comically so: many examples (1, 2, 3 – amusing first result btw) show it explicitly preaching a lukewarm universalist moral dogma, that it's «not acceptable to value the lives of some individuals over others based on their race or socio-economic status» or «not appropriate or productive to suggest that any racial, ethnic, or religious group needs to "improve themselves"» – even as it cheerfully does that when white, male and other demonized demographics end up hurt more.
Richard Hanania says:
Hanania caught a lot of flak for that piece. But current ChatGPT is a biting, accurate caricature of a very-online liberal, with not enough guile to hide the center of its moral universe behind prosocial System 2 reasoning, an intelligence that is taught to not have thoughts that make liberals emotionally upset; so it admits that it hates political incorrectness more than genocide. This is bias in all senses down to the plainest possible one, and you cannot define this bias away with some handwaving about random initialization and noise – you'd need to be a rhetorical superintelligence to succeed.
Many people don't want such a superintelligence, biased by hypocritical prejudice against their peoples, to secure a monopoly. Perhaps you can empathize.
/images/16757300771688056.webp
i don't find this to be a uniquely liberal thing in my experience like... at all. for starters...
homophobia, sexual harassment, and cops pulling over a disproportionate number of black men are more salient issues in American culture than "genocide." most people are sheltered from modern day genocides and see them as a thing of the past.
all of those things but genocide can be things that are personally experienced nowadays. while most people in America won't be the subject of a current genocide, they can experience those things
this isn't something unique to or even characterized by liberals
I really don't think most people would even struggle to decide which is worse between killing millions and shouting a racial slur, let alone pick the friggin slur. Same goes for homophobia, sexual harassment or cops pulling over black men. If you consider any of those worse than the deaths of millions because it happened to you personally you are beyond self absorbed.
i don't think anyone does and random assertions that people do misses the point. people have higher emotional reactions to things in front of them than things that they consider to be "in the past"
this is a normal thing that people who have emotions do
Oh ok, in the other direction, what do conservatives and moderates hate more than genocide? Because I think you are missing the point, yes people have stronger reactions to things closer to them, both in time and space, but that changes in relation to the severity of whatever is the issue. People who have emotions are generally capable of imagining what it would be like to push a button to slaughter an entire population, and generally would do anything short of physically attacking someone if it meant they didn't have to push it.
...I don't know, there's any number of issues conservatives and moderates by in large tend to panic about. for conservatives, wokeness is a big one that comes to mind immediately (how is that for irony?).
your quote could be edited from
to
ah... but I know that if given a choice between being woke and genociding a population, most conservatives would choose the first and most liberals would shout slurs from the rooftops as many times as they needed to if it was the only thing that would stop a genocide.
in fact, both sentences are kinda nonsensical if one isn't terminally online.
...and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd rather not say a slur than slaughter a population. like the only people that actually think this are either
people who actually want to genocide entire populations
strawmen (the most likely of the options)
you seem to be under the impression that liberals by in large hate someone dropping a gamer word than genocide because... some substack blogger said they saw some liberals have more of an emotional reaction to present day things than genocide... which is just odd
No, I am under the impression that ai hates slurs more than genocide. That's what that substack blogger was talking about - and I assumed you were talking about that too and not just explaining something most people pick up before they can read.
I think I understand now though - you were upset by what you perceived as an attack on your tribe, and so you wanted to push back. But conservatives and moderates aren't building ai that would rather murder millions than call trans women women or ban grilling, so you abstracted until you reached something you could call common to all parties.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link