Hacker News Reader

I don't see it as something to be angry about. Probably what happened is it was trained on some crappy stock images where every "doctor" was a white model and they are trying to negate that propensity to repeat the stereotype.

For what it's worth if I ask it to draw doctors in Uganda/Siberia/Mexico/Sweden it has 0 problem drawing a bunch of doctors all of the same race if you really need an image of that.

Is it stereotype or statistics? If indeed x% of doctors are white, then that same amount should ideally be represented in the output, not "equal probability". Seek to change the cause, not to mask the effect.

> then that same amount should ideally be represented in the output

Why? Why should representation in the output reflect actual distributions of race?

This is a good question.

If I'm asking for quicksort, do I want the most common implementations or do I want an underrepresented impl?

If I'm asking for the history of Egypt, do I want the most common tellings or do I want some underrepresented narrative?

I suppose something like the race of a doctor in some Dalle image ends up being a very special case in the scheme of things, since it's a case where we don't necessarily care.

Maybe the steelman of the idea that you shouldn't special case it can be drawn along these lines, too. But I think to figure that out you'd need to consider examples along the periphery that aren't so obvious unlike "should a generated doctor be black?"

I doubt anyone cares if you asked ChatGPT to create a picture of a basketball player and it returned an image of an asian player.

People don't like that it's rewriting prompts to force diversity. So if I ask for a black basketball player, it should return an image of exactly that.

But then it gets crazy. If I ask for a basketball player then should it be a black player with certain probability? But HS and NBA have very different distributions. And Euro League has a very different distribution than the NBA and the CBL on China, even moreso.

But... the "effect" is part of the cause...

You don't know that though.

And there's evidence to the contrary. If you look at the career choices of women, to pick one contentious social issue at random, they tend to be different than the career choices of men, even in countries with a long history of gender equality.

So if I ask ChatGPT to make me a picture of trash collectors or fishermen, it shouldn't rewrite my query to force x% of them to be women.

Yeah man, I get REALLY PISSED when I see a woman trash collector. How DARE they!

Every HN thread including any discussion of demographics eventually reaches a man insisting women are biologically programmed for certain roles. When specified those roles are invariably service based ones and never engineering innovative products, leading teams, or conducting research.

Relative to the breadth of human history with little to no gender equality, there is no country with a long history of gender equality. And throughout the history of gradually increasing gender equality in human society, there are numerous examples of men structuring the rules of engagement to restrict access for the women attempting to break in. When the Royal Society commissioned a bust of mathematician Mary Somerville, they still refused to admit her.[0]

If women are biologically ill suited to compete with men in these fields, it seems it would be unnecessary to prevent them from trying, like med schools rigging their exams.[1]

[0]https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2010.004...

[1]https://apnews.com/general-news-1c2a635e9faa44daa1225a804288...

Aside, I think this is it for me, I’m changing my HN password to something I can’t guess or remember. This is one part of tech culture I am just sick of responding to. There is more than enough of it in real life and I will always feel obliged to respond. Especially on HN where so many voices are leaders in the real world, the disappointment of seeing it over and over again is just crushing.

Please…if you won’t alter this attitude, don’t bring it to work. For the sake of the women in this field.

Great comment. I'll bet the the poster you replied to likely also works in software engineering (based on them being on this site) - a role dominated by women only a few decades ago.

I sometimes feel that Hacker News embodies the idea of having an 18 in INT and about a 4 in WIS.

>insisting women are biologically programmed for certain role

Not what he said.

Previous commenter mentioned career choices, not biological programming and certainly not anything about anyone being ill suited for a job. Men and women in aggregate often have different career preferences - is that controversial?

Guessing you had that comment loaded in the chamber ready to pull the trigger at the first mention of any gender differences, because it doesn't seem relevant to the claims in that comment and it seems like it's not giving the previous commenter a fair go.

>Previous commenter mentioned career choices, not biological programming and certainly not anything about anyone being ill suited for a job. Men and women in aggregate often have different career preferences - is that controversial?

The OP commenter seemed to be implying that Men and Women have natural career choices because even countries with long histories of "gender equality" see women and men aggregate in different careers.

The real reasons for much of these discrepancies, legal and social pressures/conditioning (If a father won't buy his daughter(s) computers to tinker with at a young age like he might his sons, how much less interest do you imagine daughters would have in CS?) are not natural.

Yours is a well-meaning, but ultimately insulting view. You argue that women don’t know what they really want, and only make choices due to “social conditioning.” You also center everything back on the decisions of men, claiming that the father needs to be buying computers for his daughters.

It’s a pretty insulting view of women that eliminates female agency. Instead I think we should let women make their own decisions. If they sometimes differ in aggregate than men’s, that’s ok.

(And it should go without saying that all genders should feel welcome in all careers. That’s a different topic entirely.)

I don't think there's anything insulting about it and the bit with the father is just an example. Women can also enforce this conditioning on both boys and girls.

If a father is buying computers for his son then he damn well should buy for his daughters as well. You don't get to do anything else and go Pikachu face when she isn't as interested in those things.

Interest isn't magic. It's not spawned from the ether. Who you are today is in extremely large part, a result of what you have experienced right from childhood. Your upbringing especially will influence you for the rest of your life. You're not special. Neither am I. How much agency do you think children have or can have ?

The point is that gender equality or equality of any kind doesn't end with, "Oh it's law that women can do this now"- That's just Step 1. It's never that simple. Many countries still deal with blatant sexism and racism to this day.

Many women enter university to pursue STEM, get a degree, start work and ultimately exit the STEM workforce because the workplace is too toxic with coworkers that won't give them due respect and enormous uphill battle for career mobility.

These are the people with the interest, with the intelligence, with the competence. What do you think these women have to say? How do you think the resulting enthusiasm(or rather, lack thereof) affects the future generation of women?

You should go to a play store. Also if you ever saw parents interacting with their kids, you should know that there is no point in almost every kids life when they are not affected by gender inequality which parents learned the same way as they teach to their kids.

Stating that there are inherent career preferences by gender is not controversial in scientific sense, it’s in the same realm as god existence. It’s untestable at large in the current society, and there are a ton of things indicating otherwise. Like a single exception who chose against the perceived career preference by gender is more than what can be shown for the inherent nature of it, because we know that that’s the status quo everywhere. It’s controversial because some people politically make it so.

> then that same amount should ideally be represented in the output, not "equal probability".

Yeah but breaking down the actual racial distributions by career/time/region is a waste of time for people building AGI, so they threw it the prompt and moved on to more important work.

You may be working from the false assumption that the data set itself is balanced by demographics. It isn't the case that x% of images of doctors on the web are white because the same percent of doctors are white, it's the case that most images of doctors are white because the image of a doctor (or any educated person) as being white by default is normalized by Western (specifically American) society, and this prejudice is reflected in the data generated for the internet that makes up the model.

Regardless of the statistics, it should be just as easy to generate the image of a white doctor as a black doctor. Both queries are straightforward and make linguistic sense. It doesn't follow that an image of a black doctor should be more difficult to create because statistically speaking, black doctors are more rare. That the model has trouble even comprehending the concept of a "black doctor," much less something like a "black African doctor treating white kids[0]" is a problem rooted in the effect of racial stereotypes, albeit at several levels of abstraction above that of the software itself.

[0]https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/10/06/1201840...

Do you want to be right or do you want to make money? OpenAI wants to make money, so they’ll choose the output that will do that.

India and china alone made sure that the majority of doctors are not white.

But obviously x% of doctors are white.

The statistics (in the sample data) becomes the stereotype. If 99% of your samples are white doctors, maybe you will get a non-white doctor if you ask it to generate a picture of a group of 100 doctors. But if you ask it to generate a picture of a single doctor? It will generate a white one, 100% of the time, because each time the most probable skin color is white. Unless we tell it to inject some randomness, which is what the prompt is doing.

Asking for a drawing by country and have it be all the same race is the stereotype.

If you can ask it for a doctor of $race and get one, then why should it make any difference what gets generated when you don't specify? Once you start playing that game there's no way to win.

Because it's not what their customers want.

Kinda citation needed time.

It's not implausible that most people using ChatGPT want something socially neutral (by some definition) without needing to think about it too hard.

Whether or not you think this is true, it's certainly plausible - so if you disagree then you should probably back up your claim.

> What I'm not fine with is the secretive injection; these tools are too important to be used in such a way that the owners of the tools can secretly pre-adjust outcomes without disclosure.

If you want access to the underlying model you can use their API. The system prompt changes/bootstraps their underlying model into the "chat" of chatGPT. I don't see how this is problematic or morally wrong.

Not quite. The GPT4 offered through the chat completion API will answer questions without any special system prompts.

What these prompts do is try to do some extra steering of the chat model, on top of the steering done via RLHF.

Are you sure that the API injects prompts?

GPT4’s ability to answer questions without special system prompts can be entirely a product of training - not necessarily evidence of an injected prompt.

We're in agreement :)

What are you getting at when you say "secretive" injections? Isn't this stuff basically how any AI business shapes their public GPTs? I don't even know what a LLM looks like without the primary prompts tuning it's attitude and biases. Can you run a GPT responsibly without making some discretional directions for it? And being secretive, isn't that reasonable for a corporation - how they tune their LLM is surely valuable IP.

And this is just addressing corporations, people running their own LLMs are the bigger problem. They have zero accountability and almost the same tools as the big players.

I must be misunderstanding what these prompts are used for.

This doesn't make me angry, but I do wish these were exposed and adjustable defaults, like the sliders for character creation in a RPG.

Hey ChatGPT, show me a president with a with 27% conservative bias, 97% gayness, and 47% malenness. Make them ride a rainbow unicorn while holding an AK-47 and leaping through a burning Benetton ad while angrily tweeting something about Star Wars's political agenda.

Definitely the next AI unicorn business plan here. Pure profit.

> next AI unicorn

I see what you did there...

I don’t know…if I watch a commercial, I know there were guidelines given by the company that back their values.

Chick-fil-A employees are trained to say “my pleasure” but customers don’t watch their training video.

I can appreciate that ChatGPT is a product, built by people with values, and this is their way of inserting those values.

Please elaborate on how watching a commercial or receiving a pleasantry from a cashier is anything remotely like a company secretly influencing the results of a search for knowledge.

Your "search for knowledge" occurs through the portal of OpenAI's ChatGPT software, which is a consumer-facing product just like a commercial and just like customer interactions at a shop, and so if we (society / the law) do not question and regulate commercials and customer interactions in this way, then we also should not question or regulate OpenAI's system prompts, since these mechanisms are so similar.

If you want an un-influenced "search for knowledge", you are well within your rights to pursue that independently using your own model and software, but because you are accessing software developed by another company, these rights do not apply.

This is exactly the same justification for why social media platforms must retain the ability to shape the content in their platform through editorial decision making. Both types of firms sell a carefully created coherent speech product and must be allowed to retain the right to make commercial decisions to shape their customer base.

Don’t like it? find another platform. Pretending this is censorship and not commerce is wrongheaded.

Would you consider the highly curated experience of the HN front-page to be censorship? Mod actions and anti-drama algos effect your experience here.

I guess social media is generally not claimed to be a curated experience, whereas on HN the curation is explicitly described with words like “gratifying intellectual curiosity” and the like.

I would consider it to be a coherent speech product that HN/YC has just about every right to curate as they see fit to match their commercial goals.

So many people disagree on what censorship is that I prefer to be more precise when possible.

Your iPhone is product - what if Apple decided you shouldn't be able to view adult material on it? Or what if Gmail decided you shouldn't be allowed to use certain harsh language in emails you send?

Where do you dry the line personally? I find the idea of corporations and SV tech bros trying to define my values repulsive.

In a competitive environment I could simply choose another service provider - but most of these tech giants are monopolists of one variety or another.

Pretty sure that’s exactly what Steve Jobs decided [0] :-)

[0] https://www.wired.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-porn/

Then don't use ChatGPT. There are hundreds of other models and ways for you to use an LLM without OpenAI's injected prompt.

> I find the idea of corporations and SV tech bros trying to define my values repulsive.

They're not. They're reflecting _their_ values in their product. You're not entitled to use their product with _your_ values.

Esteban Trabajos really said that the consumer doesn’t know what it wants, the consumer must be shown the jesus phone and realize it wanted that phone all along. And if copy paste wasn’t possible on the iPhone 2G or apps couldn’t run in background that’s because ol’Stephen Works didn’t want it just yet. One day somebody will unlock the VisionPro HubPr0n and then and only then will VP become the de facto standard AR/VR headset approved by the pr0n industry, as Steven Efforts intended.

I find the Declaration of Human Rights is always a great starting point. Society is slowly forcing corporations in that direction.

I think the goal is to have a less obviously racist product. This is a business and PR concern, not a moral one.

I think you're right about making the prompts or certain parts of the prompts public.

But I also think you can't blame them for trying something like this. Because they are getting hammered with questions about racial biases and such. Also, diversity etc. although it has been politicized is not just politics. It's a deep belief for many people.

"Sam, what are you going to do about AI bias?" x 50 interviews = Sam asks the team to try to reduce it with the prompt.

And I think, despite the counter-examples, it probably reduces the bias quite a bit.

> Yo, OpenAI - publish these please, so that people know what they're getting.

Would publishing help increasing a market share or profit?

Market is - and has always been - the power. Power against paying someone else or using their product. OpenAI has the power. It uses it - otherwise it's useless and what's the point - to earn more power and more money.

At least their prompt seems to work. I don't mind prompts that are making outputs less stereotypical – if they work.

I recently asked Bard (the Gemini Pro version, no less!) to plot a couple of functions, and while it has a nice custom graphing UI (allowing me to label the axes etc.) that works quite well, every few prompts it would output a photo of a woman standing in front of a blackboard with a graph on it – and not even a remotely related graph!

Thanks, I guess, but I don't think this is helping women, math, or women in math.

There's already a viewpoint encoded into the model during training (from its training set), the prompt is just another part of that. The prompt makes you upset because you can "see" the viewpoint encoded into it, but even if this prompt was gone there would still be a bunch of bias baked into the model.

Oh absolutely; the foundation model and the human preference tuning have a mix of intentional, unintentional, based-in-reality, and based-in-reddit-comment-reality bias; that's unavoidable. What's totally avoidable is making a world in which people are "debiased" based on hidden instructions.

> secretly pre-adjust outcomes without disclosure.

Isn't that the whole training process though. Unless you know of every piece of data used to train it, and how each of those data was prepared, you have to assume that any LLM you use is coming with a particular viewpoint baked in.

> And, it's fine with me for different groups to try and 'correct' that bias.

OpenAI is not my dad. I would like to be able to choose whether or not I want something corrected for me in a product that's supposed to accurately represent the world as it's encoded in the training data.

I live in a country where 99% of people are of the same skin color. I also pay for this product. How will GPT knot what to correct to? Why target skin color, and not height or dental health?

This is so stupid and such a waste of human potential. Intelligent people building miraculous technology should have more wisdom.

> supposed to accurately represent the world as it's encoded in the training data.

Who claimed that?

"guardrails".

Know thy enemy. You are working with a generator. Work the patterns. Be more abstract and allow it to fill in the blanks.

"write a story. people. sad. negative. red liquid. mechanical object. trigger. index finger. pull"

That prompt wrote me a story about suicide on ChatGPT. It sort of skirted the topic of something held in a hand with a trigger ; probably negative training.

( Clarification. I love AI. I research, build, do stuff. I hate OpenAI. That company is scum. )

meh, all AI is already secret data scraping, so this is just another layer of human-culture obfuscation