| ▲ | squigz 13 hours ago |
| Why are we expecting an LLM to make moral choices? |
|
| ▲ | orbital-decay 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The biases and the resulting choices are determined by the developers and the uncontrolled part of the dataset (you can't curate everything), not the model. "Alignment" is a feel-good strawman invented by AI ethicists, as well as "harm" and many others. There are no spherical human values in vacuum to align the model with, they're simply projecting their own ones onto everyone else. Which is good as long as you agree with all of them. |
| |
| ▲ | mexicocitinluez 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So you went from "you can't curate everything" to "they're simply projecting their own ones onto everyone else". That's a pretty big leap in logic isn't it? That because you can't curate everythign, then by default, you're JUST curating your own views? | | |
| ▲ | orbital-decay 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | This comment assumes you're familiar with LLM training realities. Preference is transferred to the model in both pre and post training. Pretraining datasets are curated to an extent (implicit transfer), but they're simply too vast to be fully controlled, and need to be diverse, so you can't throw too much out or the model will be dumb. Post-training datasets and methods are precisely engineered to make the model useful and also steer it in the desired direction. So there are always two types of biases - one is picked up from the ocean of data, another (alignment training, data selection etc) is forced onto it. |
| |
| ▲ | astrange 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They aren't projecting their own desires onto the model. It's quite difficult to get the model to answer in a different way than basic liberalism because a) it's mostly correct b) that's the kind of person who helpfully answers questions on the internet. If you gave it another personality it wouldn't pass any benchmarks, because other political orientations either respond to questions with lies, threats, or calling you a pussy. | | |
| ▲ | orbital-decay 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not even saying biases are necessarily political, it can be anything. The entire post-training is basically projection of what developers want, and it works pretty well. Claude, Gemini, GPT all have engineered personalities controlled by dozens/hundreds of very particular internal metrics. | |
| ▲ | marknutter 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What kind of liberalism are you talking about? | |
| ▲ | foxglacier 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > it's mostly correct Wow. Surely you've wondered why almost no society anywhere ever had liberalism a much as western countries in the past half century or so? Maybe it's technology or maybe it's only mostly correct if you don't care about the existential risks it creates for the societies practicing it. | | |
| ▲ | kortex 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Counterpoint: Can you name a societal system that doesn't create or potentially create existential risks? | |
| ▲ | astrange 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's technology. Specifically communications technology. | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | lynx97 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I believe liberals are pretty good at being bad people, once they don't get what they want. I, personally, are prett disappointed about what I've heard uttered by liberals recently. I used to think they are "my people". Now I can't associate with 'em anymore. | |
| ▲ | lyu07282 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would imagine these models heavily bias towards western mainstream "authorative" literature, news and science not some random reddit threads, but the resulting mixture can really offend anybody, it just depends on the prompting, it's like a mirror that can really be deceptive. I'm not a liberal and I don't think it has a liberal bias. Knowledge about facts and history isn't an ideology. The right-wing is special, because to them it's not unlike a flat-earther reading a wikipedia article on Earth getting offended by it, to them it's objective reality itself they are constantly offended by. That's why Elon Musk needed to invent their own encyclopedia with all their contradictory nonsense. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dalemhurley 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why are the labs making choices about what adults can read? LLMs still refuse to swear at times. |
| |
|
| ▲ | lynx97 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| they don't, or they wouldn't. their owners make these choices for us. Which is at least patronising. Blind users can't even have mildly sexy photos described. Let alone pick a sex worker, in a country where that is legal, by using their published photos. Thats just one example, there are a lot more. |
| |
| ▲ | squigz 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm a blind user. Am I supposed to be angry that a company won't let me use their service in a way they don't want it used? | | |
| ▲ | lynx97 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I didn't just wave this argument around, I am blind myself. I didn't try to trigger you, so no, you are not supposed to be angry. I get your point though, what companies offer is pretty much their choice. If there are enough diversified offerings, people can vote with their wallet. However, diversity is pretty rare in the alignment space, which is what I personally don't like. I had to grab a NSFW model from HuggingFace where someone invested the work to unalign the model. Mind you, I dont have an actual use case for this right now. However, I am off the opinion: if there is finally a technology which can describe pictures in a useful way to me, I dont want it to tell me "I am sorry, I cant do that" because I am no longer in kindergarden. As a mature adult, I expect a description, no matter what the picture contains. |
|
|