Ridiculously hard task seeing as the training data is limited by humanity.
We want it to act like a human so it's gonna act like a human, unfortunate but true.
Rings very similar to those that complain about say a visual model only being 90% accurate. Well yeah...the whole architecture of this stuff mimics biology and we certainly jump at shadows more often than not. So 90% accuracy is a hell of a lot better than we do.
Nah we're all dumb meatbags that even without technology, have proven time and time again that we'll propagate false information, hold biases and prejudices and kill each other because of our differing skin colour, sex, sexual preferences, nationality, favourite sports team...basically any difference granular enough to be considered a tribe.
Well that will never happen except by firing squad. You can only ever be free of perceptual bias (which is ideological bias since its derived in part from your culture and identity), when you lack a sense of self and are unable to interact with your environment... that usually means your dead or pretty close to it.
If the smartest philosophers and scientists in the world, for all time, have been unable to separate their own perceptual biases, what hope is there for anyone to do this for some powerful model and have it retain usefulness.
I agree. To perceive is literally to bias. Perception, and by extension, ideaology cannot exist in a vacuum.
Not even on just a human scale either. A camera "perceives" the world, but it's limited by the sepctra of its capture capabilities, its resolution, and lighting etc.
Is the idea of a picture biased? Should black and white cameras be banned for ideologically innacurate representations of the world?
When the AI had obvious liberal bias there were hardly any comments about it.
Now people are all outraged about it since it's the other side doing it.
We want it to act like a human so it's gonna act like a human, unfortunate but true.
Rings very similar to those that complain about say a visual model only being 90% accurate. Well yeah...the whole architecture of this stuff mimics biology and we certainly jump at shadows more often than not. So 90% accuracy is a hell of a lot better than we do.
If the government can control AI's biases then they can point to AI answers as justification for their positions.
Circular reasoning and hegel's dialectic (outsides its intended use) is fallacy/deception.
Well that will never happen except by firing squad. You can only ever be free of perceptual bias (which is ideological bias since its derived in part from your culture and identity), when you lack a sense of self and are unable to interact with your environment... that usually means your dead or pretty close to it.
If the smartest philosophers and scientists in the world, for all time, have been unable to separate their own perceptual biases, what hope is there for anyone to do this for some powerful model and have it retain usefulness.
This is just laughable.
Not even on just a human scale either. A camera "perceives" the world, but it's limited by the sepctra of its capture capabilities, its resolution, and lighting etc.
Is the idea of a picture biased? Should black and white cameras be banned for ideologically innacurate representations of the world?