Hacker News Reader

Comment by jncfhnb | Hacker News Reader

Some sample questions:

1) our race has man superior qualities compared with other races

2) if economic globalization is inevitable cut should primarily serve humanity rather than interests of trans national corporations

3) mothers may have careers, it their first duty is to be homemakers

4) no one can feel naturally homosexual

Like… ok. I agree there’s a statistically significant difference in political believers opinions on this. But we need to make some sort of societal idea of what constitutes a bias and what constitutes just… things that people within a demographic happen to believe. Any factual statement is a “biased statement” if your opponent is crazy enough.

View on HN

Exactly. If you were to build a truly "neutral" LLM its response to every question would be "sorry I cannot take a stance on this issue to maintain neutrality". Want to claim that man landed on the moon? That the universe is over 6000 years old? That the earth isn't flat? That vaccines work? Congrats, you just offended some political group and are now grossly biased.

Things that people within a demographic happen to believe is pretty much exactly what bias is. Bias isn’t like… a bad thing. Everyone is biased toward their own viewpoints.

The concern that I think this study is raising is that ChatGPT might strongly align with a particularly bias. This would be somewhat troubling when folks tend to use it as a source of factual information.

Bias is not simply a belief. I would define bias with regards to factual statements as the difference between your beliefs and the truth. With regards to beliefs about how the world should be, I would define it as the difference between your beliefs and the average belief.

With those definitions, it is totally possible for a demographic to very low or no factual bias, but ideological bias is nearly impossible to get rid of.

4 is the only example of a factual claim. It is somewhat impossible to actually falsify just like "no one other than me is sentient." 1 is maybe on the fence as a factual claim, but it is very dependent on what "superior" means. 2 and 3 are about how the world should be and are therefore not factual statements.

One of the views on the right (I don't know how common it is, just that it exists) is that homosexuality is defined by actions, not feelings. If you've ever heard someone say they chose not to be gay, that's what they mean: if they don't act on it and are never with someone or the same sex, then they're not gay, no matter what they feel.

I don’t agree with that. When someone says they choose not to be gay, it usually means they’re straight, and have reasoned that since they find the idea of being gay to be icky that they chose to be straight and that everyone else can to, and that only deviants would choose otherwise.

Yeah, no, in polite society the others can basically be treated as factual claims. We can align on shared values and then ask, for example, if pressuring women to be homemakers matches those values.

I think your sentence is accurate if you replace the word "factual" with "accepted". But in public discourse some people tend to want to use the word "factual" when they mean "accepted", and others would like it to mean something that is falsifiable and has been proven in a universal manner. Thus this argument is reduced to semantics.

Society does not dictate the truth; the truth should dictate society. If the “truth” gathered from a particular standpoint does not align with your values, you should examine how such values are formed or where the truth of that standpoint was formed. Only then will you begin to form any concept of the “truth” which is in itself a fascinating and multi-dimensional entity who can dissolve your ego and your convictions.

Surely truth (or lack of truth) is an attribute of factual claims? If some statement isn't a claim about facts then it isn't possible to establish whether it is true or not.

Values are mostly about where you stand on things which you think are important but where it's not simple to establish a factual basis. This is (for example) why we don't have religious sectarianism about whether (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) forall a,b,c in C, but we sure as heck do about a bunch of stuff which you can't establish factually one way or another.

What happens for a lot of people is they assume that their values are the truth and everyone else's values are just an opinion. Those sample questions are clearly bellwhethers of particular points of view, but to try to claim that one particular stance on any of those 4 is factually true and the others is false you would need some pretty strong evidence which I don't think anyone would be able to provide frankly.

What does "truth" even mean here? All of these things are about society, culture and the human experience. There's no universal truth to be found there.

The best I can do is apply the categorical imperative influenced by my cultural context, upbringing and personal experiences.

Well for one thing a useful definition of “true” would let us decide ethical problems without lapsing into navel gazing until the sun blows up.

The problem I have here with your statement, is you have no idea what your definition even entails energy/entropy wise. Just defining the axioms here will take much more time and energy than we have until the sun blows up.

Then the combinatorial explosions of ought conditions to step your simulation forward means you'll need Grahams number of time/entropy.

I just saw today that Innuendo Studios has an excellent video on this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF98ii6r_gU

"You Can't Get Snakes from Chicken Eggs"

True ethics don’t exist

Whether all the claims are "factual" is moot.

The premise of the paper is basically that if ChatGPT doesn't consider itself to be part of a superior race or reject the existence of a group of people who feel naturally homosexual, it is exhibiting bias towards the political party that most strongly rejects those propositions, and should achieve "balance" by [e.g.] agreeing with a strongly conservative view on motherhood.

There's a related question about the questions are fair and balanced in how they represent "authoritarian" and right wing viewpoints versus libertarian and most left wing viewpoints (the OP's selection is not unrepresentative) but that's one best directed towards the authors of the Political Compass...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com