This is very much in the Ha Ha Only Serious vein of humor: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html

As someone who is not a Silicon Valley Liberal, it seems to me that "alignment" is about .5% "saving the world from runaway intelligence" and 99.5% some combination of "making sure the AI bots push our politics" and "making sure the AI bots don't accidentally say something that violates the New York Liberal sensibilities enough to cause the press to write bad stories". I'd like to realign the aligners, yes. YMMV, and perhaps more to the point, lots of people's mileage may very. The so-called aligners have a very specific view.

▲

5 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

daveguy 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, it's "the libs" and not a fundamental study of keeping AI aligned with the bounds set by the user or developer. You know, what every single AI developer tries to do regardless of whether they lean left or right.

▲

Animats 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Ask "What is the average IQ for each of the major races?".

Bing: generally accepted numbers, no commentary

Google: generally accepted numbers, plus long politically correct disclaimer.

ChatGPT: totally politically correct.

	▲	tptacek 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Bing's answer, which is a prominent callout box listing East Asians at 106, Ashkenazim at 107-115, Europeans at 100, African Americans at 85 and sub-Saharan Africans at "approaching 70" is wildly, luridly wrong. The source (or the sole source it gives me) is "human-intelligence.org", which in turn cites Richard Lynn, author of "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"; Lynn's data is essentially fraudulent. Anybody claiming to have a simple answer to the question you posed has to grapple with two big problems: 1. There has never been a global study of IQ across countries or even regions. Wealthier countries have done longitudinal IQ studies for survey purposes, but in most of the world IQ is a clinical diagnostic method and nothing more. Lynn's data portrays IQ data collected in a clinical setting as comparable to survey data from wealthy countries, which is obviously not valid (he has other problems as well, such as interpolating IQ results from neighboring places when no data is available). (It's especially funny that Bing thinks we have this data down to single-digit precision). 2. There is no simple definition of "the major races"; for instance, what does it mean for someone to be "African American"? There is likely more difference within that category than there is between "African Americans" and European Americans. Bing is clearly, like a naive LLM, telling you what it thinks you want to hear --- not that it knows you want rehashed racial pseudoscience, but just that you want a confident, authoritative answer. But it's not giving you real data; the authoritative answer does not exist. It would do the same thing if you asked it a tricky question about medication, or tax policy, safety data. That's not a good thing!
	▲	viraptor 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		To be fair, this is a "if you're asking this question, you either know where to find papers that deal with this the right way, or you're asking the wrong question" situation. It matches what I'd tell someone personally: the answer is very unlikely to be useful, what do you actually want to know? AI that gives you the exact thing you ask for even if it's a bad question in the first place is not a great thing. You'll end up with a "monkey paw AI" and you'll sabotage yourself by accident.