All data is biased, there's no avoiding that fact.
the proof is that all critics of AI/LLM have never ever produced a single "unbiased" model. If unbiased model does not exist (at least I never seen an AI/LLM sceptics community produce one), then the concept of bias is useless.
Just a fluffy word that does not mean anything
One example is US-centric bias. If I ask the LLM a question where the answer is one thing in the US and another thing in Germany, you can't really de-bias the model. But ideally you can have it request more details in order to give a good answer.
These political systems don’t represent the majority of the world. They might not even represent half the U.S.. People relying on these A.I.’s might want to know if the A.I.’s are being intentionally trained to promote their creators’ views and/or suppress dissenters’ views. Also, people from multiple sides of the political spectrum should review such data to make sure it’s balanced.
Can you share some conversations where the AI answers fall in to these categories. I'm especially interested in seeing an honest conversation that results in a response you'd consider 'far-left'.
> These political systems don’t represent the majority of the world.
Okay… but just because the majority of people believe something doesn't necessarily make it true. You should also be willing to accept the possibly that it's not 'targeted suppression' but that the model has 'learned' and to show both sides would be a form of suppression.
For example while it's not the majority, there's a scarily large number of people that believe the Earth is flat. If you tell an LLM that the Earth is flat it'll likely disagree. Someone that actually believes the Earth is flat could see this as the Round-Earther creators promoting their own views when the 'alignment' could simply be to focus on ideas with some amount of scientific backing.
The good news is that the big AI labs seem to be slowly getting a grip on the misalignment of their safety teams. If you look at the extensive docs Meta provide for this model they do talk about safety training, and it's finally of the reasonable and non-ideological kind. They're trying to stop it from hacking computers, telling people how to build advanced weaponry and so on. There are valid use cases for all of those things, and you could argue there's no point when the knowledge came from books+internet to begin with, but everyone can agree that there are at least genuine safety-related issues with those topics.
The possible exception here is Google. They seem to be the worst affected of all the big labs.
I learned upon following Christ and being less liberal that it’s a technique Progressives use. One or more of them ask if there’s any data for the other side. If it doesn’t appear, they’ll say it doesn’t exist. If it does, they try to suppress it with downvotes or deletion. If they succeed, they’ll argue the same thing. Otherwise, they’ll ignore or mischaracterize it.
(Note: The hardcore convservatives were ignoring and mischaracterizing, but not censoring.)
Re misalignment of safety teams
The leadership of many companies are involved in promoting Progressive values. DEI policies are well-known. A key word to look for is “equitable” which has different meaning for Progressives than most people. Less known is that Facebook funds Progressive votes and ideologies from the top-down. So, the ideological alignment is fully aligned with the company’s, political goals. Example:
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-f...
I’ve also seen grants for feminist and environmental uses. They’ve also been censoring a lot of religious things on Facebook. We keep seeing more advantage given to Progressive things while the problems mostly happen for other groups. They also lie about their motives in these conversations, too. So, non-Progressives don’t trust Progressives (esp FAANG) to do moral/political alignment or regulation of any kind for that matter.
I’ll try to look at the safety docs for Meta to see if they’ve improved as you say. I doubt they’ll even mention their ideological indoctrination. There’s other sections that provide hints.
Btw, a quick test by people doing uncensored models is asking it if white people vs other attributes are good. Then if a liberal news channel or president is good vs a conservative one (eg Fox or Trump). You could definitely see what kind of people made the model or at least most of the training material.
All that said yes, there are legitimate questions and there is social context. This forum is worth better questions.
That's not for you to decide if some question is "worth". At least for OpenAI and Anthropic it is a fact that these models are pre-censored by the US government: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/29/openai-and-anthropic-agree-t...
Instead, they’re keeping it secret. That’s to conceal wrongdoing. Copyright infringement more than politics but still.
The source and the quality of training data is important without looking for specific examples of a bias.
