He's hoping to control AI as the next platform through which users interact with apps. Free AI is then fine if the surplus value created by not having a gatekeeper to his apps exceeds the cost of the free AI.
That's the strategy. No values here - just strategy folks.
Thats not to say there isnt a strategy or that it's all values. Its to say that youre denying Zuck any chance at values because you enjoy hating on him. Bc Zuck has also said in multiple interviews that his values do include open source and given two facts with the same level of sourcing you deny the one fact that doesn't let you be mean.
The thing about giant companies is they never want there to be more giant companies.
You can’t say that for the other guys.
Meta has no interest in that but directly benefits from advancements on top of Llama.
If I didn’t have context I’d assume this was about Google.
Just to nit pick... Advertising is their revenue stream. LLMs are a threat to search, which is what they offer people in exchange for ad views/clicks.
On the flip, for all the resources they’ve poured into their models all they’ve come up with is good models, not better search. So they’re not dead in the water yet but everyone suspects LLMs will eat search.
I think LLMs are acting as a store of knowledge that can answer questions. To the extent search can be replaced by asking an oracle, I agree. But search requires scoring the relevance of web pages and returning relevant results to the user. I don't see LLMs evaluating web sites like that, nor do I see them keeping up to date with news and other timely information. So I see search taking a small hit but not in significant danger from LLMs.
Even when they hit the Internet to answer a question they're still using a search engine, ie search engines will absolutely still be required going into the future.
But still, Kudos to Zuck/Meta for doing it anyway.
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.
As someone from outside the US, it is quite common to face annoyances like address fields expecting addresses in US format, systems misbehaving and sometimes failing silently if you have two surnames, or accented characters in your personal data, etc. Years go by, tech gets better, but these issues don't go away, they just reappear in different places.
It's funny how some people seem to have discovered this kind of bias and started getting angry with LLMs, which are actually quite OK in this respect.
Not saying that it isn't an issue that should be addressed, just that some people are using it as an excuse to get indignant at AI and it doesn't make much sense. Just like the people who get indignant at AI because ChatGPT collects your input and uses it for training - what do they think social networks have been doing with their input in the last 20 years?
all arguments about supposed bias fall flat when you start asking question about ROI of the "debiasing work".
When you calculate $$$ required to de-bias a model, for example to make LLM recognize Syrian phone numbers: in compute and labor, and compare it to the market opportunity than the ROI is simply not there.
There is a good reason why LLMs are English-specific - because it is the largest market with biggest number of highest paying users for such LLM.
If there is no market demand in "de-biased" model that covers the cost of development, then trying to spend $$$ on de-biasing is pure waste of resources
If there was no Germany-specific data in the training corpus - it is not fair to expect LLM to know anything about Germany.
You can check a foundation model from Chinese LLM researchers, and you will most likely see Sino-centric bias just because of the training corpus + synthetic data generation was focused on their native/working language, and their goal was to create foundation model for their language.
I challenge any LLM sceptics - instead of just lazily poking holes in models - create a supposedly better model that reduces bias and lets evaluate your model with specific metrics
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.
All that said yes, there are legitimate questions and there is social context. This forum is worth better questions.
Instead, they’re keeping it secret. That’s to conceal wrongdoing. Copyright infringement more than politics but still.
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...
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.
We don’t want it to beat us into submission about one set of views it was aligned to prefer. That’s what ChatGPT was doing. In one conversation, it would even argue over and over in each paragraph not to believe the very points it was presenting. That’s not just unhelpful to us: it’s deceptive for them to do that after presenting it like it serves all our interests, not just one side’s.
It would be more honest if they added to its advertising or model card that it’s designed to promote far-left, Progressive, and godless views. That moral interpretations of those views are reinforced while others are watered down or punished by the training process. Then, people may or may not use those models depending on their own goals.
Cut out "computer" here - would you want any person to hold a falsehood as the truth?
A lot of the time we have to fall back to estimating how plausible something is based on the knowledge we do have. Even in science it’s common for outcomes to be probabilistic rather than absolute.
So I say there is no god because, to my mind, the claim makes no sense. There is nothing I have ever seen, or that science has ever collected data on, to indicate that such a thing is plausible. It’s a myth, a fairy tale. I don’t need to prove otherwise because the onus of proof is on the one making the incredible claim.
Given that this is an estimate could you estimate what kind of thing you would have to see or what shape of data collected by science that would make you reconsider the plausibility of the existence of a supreme being?
I'm not even opposed to believing that our perception is flawed - clearly we don't know everything and there is much about reality we can't perceive let alone understand. But this would be so far outside of what we do understand that I cannot simply assume that it's true - I would need to see it to believe it.
There are virtually limitless ways such a being could make itself evident to humanity yet the only "evidence" anyone can come up with is either ancient stories or phenomena more plausibly explained by other causes. To me this completely tracks with the implausibility of the existence of god.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. It doesn't sound like you're saying that "supreme being" is "black white" (that is, mutually contradictory, meaningless). More like "proof of the existence of the supreme being is impossible". But you also say "I would need to see it to believe it", which suggests that you do think there is a category of proofs that would demonstrate the existence of the supreme being.
God is an egregore. It may be useful to model the various religions as singular entities under this lens, not true in the strictest sense, but useful none the less.
God, Santa, and (our {human} version of) Math: all exist in 'mental space', they are models of the world (one is a significantly more accurate model, obviously).
Atheist here: God didn't create humans, humans created an egregorical construction we call God, and we should kill the egregores we have let loose into the minds of humans.
For my own sanity I try to think of those who believe in literal god as simply confusing it with the universe itself. The universe created us, it nurtures us, it’s sort of timeless and immortal. If only they could just leave it at that.
https://www.gethisword.com/evidence.html
With that, the Bible should be taken at least as seriously as any godless work with lots of evidence behind it. If you don’t do that, it means you’ve closed your heart off to God for reasons having nothing to do with evidence. Also, much evidence for the Bible strengthens the claim that Jesus is God in the flesh, died for our sins, rose again, and will give eternal life and renewed life to those who commit to Him.
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.
That broadens the topics a lot.
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 source and the quality of training data is important without looking for specific examples of a bias.
They're clearly majorly scrubbing things somehow