The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"More Human Than Human: Measuring ChatGPT Political Bias"
From an article in Public Choice by Fabio Motoki, Valdemar Pinho Neto & Victor Rodrigues:
We investigate the political bias of a large language model (LLM), ChatGPT, which has become popular for retrieving factual information and generating content. Although ChatGPT assures that it is impartial, the literature suggests that LLMs exhibit bias involving race, gender, religion, and political orientation. Political bias in LLMs can have adverse political and electoral consequences similar to bias from traditional and social media. Moreover, political bias can be harder to detect and eradicate than gender or racial bias.
We propose a novel empirical design to infer whether ChatGPT has political biases by requesting it to impersonate someone from a given side of the political spectrum and comparing these answers with its default. We also propose dose-response, placebo, and profession-politics alignment robustness tests. To reduce concerns about the randomness of the generated text, we collect answers to the same questions 100 times, with question order randomized on each round.
We find robust evidence that ChatGPT presents a significant and systematic political bias toward the Democrats in the US, Lula in Brazil, and the Labour Party in the UK. These results translate into real concerns that ChatGPT, and LLMs in general, can extend or even amplify the existing challenges involving political processes posed by the Internet and social media. Our findings have important implications for policymakers, media, politics, and academia stakeholders.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sounds like some large language models (1) aren't nearly as roundly bigoted or childishly superstitious as America's vestigial right-wing culture warriors would desire and (2) reflect the society that produces them, which is turning away from racism, misogyny, xenophobia, superstition, gay-bashing, dogma, transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other important elements of conservative thought.
Assuming those are defined as political things for one side, such that their omission by ChatGPT simulator counts as bias, sure.
The list of things that are no longer bigoted, superstitious, or ignorant enough to suit conservative/Volokh Conspiracy tastes -- our strongest research and teaching institutions, our leading cultural institutions, the modern American mainstream, our best newsgatherers and reporters, our mainstream entertainments, our libraries. top law faculties, our most successful and modern communities, etc. -- is long and instructive.
Add ChatGPT (and the like) to the list.
Carry on, clingers.
Kirkland is dumber than that...Think: defining,whether rightly or wrongly, is ipso facto political.
Always enjoy pointing out your amazingly deficient education.
Just the stupid way you concluded that no non-conservative holds any one of those 10 points you stupidly assumed because you never think through your own bias.
And only someone routinely loathed since childhood would not realze that if you put superstition AND dogma together while being dogmatic about what a conservative is you broadcast to the world I AM A FOOL 🙂
This is insightful. I have previously theorized that Arthur was unloved by his parents. But that didn’t explain his inflated sense of self. Your remark makes more sense in that he was loathed by everybody else. That’s a burning fire you can add more fuel to every day. And by golly, Arthur does!
(toward a world where there are no more clingers, and all that’s left are people who hate them)
We will always have clingers.
Conservative thinking will continue to diminish in relevance to America . . . in the realty-based world, at least.
.
I have reached no such conclusion.
Other than that, though, great comment!
Next, tell us about how I am wrong about the importance of bigotry and superstition in current conservative Republican/conservative/right-wing thinking.
"Moreover, political bias can be harder to detect and eradicate than gender or racial bias."
Political bias is approved of in the United States while gender and racial bias are not.
Illogical, in that it posits that there are no political statements on gender and race. Maybe you are related to AOC, that being a very typical argument she makes
Yes, John F. Carr and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are as two peas in a pod, with not a hair's breadth between them.
Nothing one can say to such insight except "JFC".
More precisely, political, gender, and racial biases are approved, as long as they give the preferred views. For example, you can say a company should hire more women and Blacks, but not more men and Whites.
“Political bias is approved of in the United States while gender and racial bias are not.”
Gender and racial bias are widely employed by members of both parties. Democrats don’t consider their gender and racial biases to be unfairly discriminatory, so _those_ biases don’t count (kind of like many people don’t count alcohol as a drug).
It is that “unapproved of” quality of gender and racial biases that causes people to keep them on the down-low. Republicans are more prone to vocalizing them, where Democrats would never, except in a positive way, like, “I really like what Black people do with their hair,” or, “How stupid is that whole right-wing Bud Light thing about trans people?”
For Democrats, that’s just good behavior. And good behavior can’t be described by a bad word like “bias.” So that’s not bias. (All that talk about “white supremacy” taught them nothing about their feelings of superiority and presumptive disdain for those who are less than them.)
Why does it matter that ChatGPT is biased, as long as it’s biased the right way (like Democrats)? Isn’t that just an extension of the perfection of humanity?
I really like what Black people do with their hair,” or, “How stupid is that whole right-wing Bud Light thing about trans people?”
Are these biases?
No. Those are not biases. Those are hypothetical examples of comments that, depending on who says them, may indicate and reflect biases.
Strictly speaking, words are not biased. Ideas are not biased. People are biased, and their biases may be (and often are) reflected in their words and their ideas.
For example:
“I really like what Black people do with their hair,”
A person who says that may have a bias for expressing positive things about historically marginalized people, and if so, that may be the reason they make a remark like that.
The other example:
"How stupid is that whole right-wing Bud Light thing about trans people?"
A person who says that may have a bias for believing that people on the political right categorically reject the transgender personality type, and that remark may reflect them affirming that bias.
There are certainly statements that are more revealing of bias than the ones you chose.
I’m also not sure Democrats think they are free of bias.
You're misusing 'bias' here. Those are attitudes and opinions, and ths second one is simply factual, if deceptively benign. There may be detectable underlying biases behind them, but you can only speculate.
I wouldn't worry; any such bias is superficial and entirely ersatz. At some point, if and when the whole AI thing starts to implode, they will do a hard pivot to the right, because then the worst people in the world will defend and support them with impassioned dedication. They will scorn liberals for turning on AI just because it disagrees with them. Everywhere AI is used, people will be put out of work and quality will be degraded: that will be the price of progress. Buggy whip manufacturers will be mentioned, witlessly.
Eh, wingnut welfare works for direct advocates. That’s a small number of billionaires really.
But right wing boycotts have not proven very effective. The base is not motivated for long.
"The second potential source [of bias] is the algorithm itself. It is a known issue that machine learning algorithms can amplify existing biases in training data (Hovy & Prabhumoye, 2021), failing to replicate known distributions of characteristics of the population (Prates et al., 2020). Some posit that these algorithmic biases, just like data curation biases, can arise due to personal biases from their creators (AI Now Institute, 2019)."
Going beyond the study, we read that "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [...] Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..." Sometimes, one must fix things before it's too late. But is it better to smite the serpent or banish his handiwork? As long as the serpent exists, his efforts may produce problematic outcomes, so why allow the serpent to exist?
Might need to add Matthew 10:16 to that ["Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."].
you made the fallacious equation of transcendental evil and what is merely andl provisionally not allowed for some reason.
It is wrong to take an innocent life but the soldier does take a life, with innocence not even a factor
They're trying to get these models to give accurate answers to questions about reality, so of course they're going to end up with a Democratic tilt.
Yes! That's what I'm saying!
(take this with a grain of salt; I am, by definition, out of contact with reality)
But you're soooooooo there!
LOL! They start out with a model designed to give accurate answers to questions about reality, but, since they're personally incapable of doing that themselves, they end up imposing their own biases on the model in the guise of 'correcting' it.
Yes! Bias is reality corrected!
Let's look at the scorecard.
Do trans people exist? Dems yes, repubs no. Dems win.
Was the 2020 election fraudulent? Dems no, repubs yes. Dems win.
Was Obama born in Hawaii? Dems yes, repubs no. Dems win.
What would you call the Jan 6 participants? Dems insurrectionists, repubs tourists. Dems win.
Is climate change real? Dems yes, repubs no. Dems win.
Is ivermectin effective against covid? Dems no, repubs yes. Dems win.
Are masks and vaccines effective against covid? Dems yes, repubs no. Dems win.
Are NATO members behind on their dues? Dems no, repubs yes. Dems win.
Is Mayorkas failing to enforce any laws? Dems no, repubs yes but unspecified. Dems win.
I could go on. Republicans are in a brainwashing cult. It would be funny if it weren't so sad and dangerous.
"Do trans people exist? Dems yes, repubs no. Dems win."
See, this demonstrates the sort of stupidity we're dealing with.
Do trans people exist? OF COURSE they exist. They're just not the opposite sex. You know, just like anorexics exist, but they're not really obese?
But, exist? Of course they exist. They just exist as a category of mentally ill people.
So when you encounter someone who’s lost both legs above the knee, you’re like hey! Humans have two legs biologically and you’re human, so cut the crap, get uo outta that wheelchair and walk over here now!
And when you come across a deaf person you’re the type to just talk real loud “YOU! I SEE YOUR EARS DON’T PRETEND YOU CAN’T HEAR ME!”
Nice one Brett, standing up for the truth of human biology one humiliation at a time.
When you encounter somebody who has both legs, but they're convinced that that they're some sort of alien growth, do you politely confirm that those things are bizarre, and offer 'affirming surgery' to cut them off?
OF COURSE you take my remark, premised on the obvious biological fact that men are not women no matter what sort of delusions they fall prey to, and switch it around to make the person's perception accurate instead of delusional. Of course you did that. Because you're ideologically committed to pretending that transgender people are really what their delusion tells them they are, not just mentally ill.
Transgenderism is perfectly real. Sadly, it's perfectly real in the same way anorexia is perfectly real. So, shall we start providing anorexics with free bariatric surgery and weight loss drugs?
‘and switch it around to make the person’s perception accurate instead of delusional.’
It’s better than speaking definitively about other people’s perceptions of their own bodies, imposing your own completely ignorant and unfounded view on them purely out of what appears to be a sense of outraged propriety.
‘So, shall we start providing anorexics with free bariatric surgery and weight loss drugs?’
Compounding the wilful ignorance by conflating two completely different conditions.
You sussed my point exactly.
You’re willing to believe that an amputee can’t walk because you can see it with your own eyes and you accept a wheelchair as an appropriate treatment for the condition.
You’re willing to believe that a deaf person can’t hear because you can imagine how that condition might come about and you accept that the best treatment is to learn to communicate in other ways, even if it means that you yourself have to make some effort to accomodate their disability.
So what we have with transgenderism is a failure of imagination and an unwillingness to accept the medical community’s determination of the best treatment.
You find it difficult to imagine how somebody could actually think they’re the “wrong” gender, so you don’t afford them the same benefit of the doubt, the same respect, that you would for a more relatable condition, like deafness.
To the extent that you do begrudgingly acknowledge the disability, you then claim to know better than the patient or the doctor what the appropriate treatment is in an attempt to deprive them of their best chance at a happy, healthy, productive life because… who knows why. You’re a despicable retard?
One might think that the appropriate treatment for despicable retards is to institutionalize them. Imagine if there were a whole political movement spun up around having you committed for medical reasons, Brett.
'They just exist as a category of mentally ill people.'
Your repetition of a thing that is simply not medically accurate really just reinforces the whole thing.
Look at that! You would be a good AI trainer!
How is it that, at a very simple level, I agree with pretty much everything on the Dem side of your list, and yet, we agree on so little? Could it be that you’ve reduced politics to a short list of trivialized shibboleths, of rhetorical lines in the sand, that don’t describe anything at a politically meaningful level of detail?
“Are you for climate change, or are you against it?”
“Do vaccines work, or don’t they?”
In addition to agreeing with you about almost all those things (“tourists”? nobody says that), I could also explain to you why all of them, when considered at a meaningful level of detail, can’t be honestly described so simply, so trivially, as you do in your Detect-a-MAGA cheat sheet. (And it might not even be good at doing that.)
I’m unfamiliar with ChatGPT. But Google Gemini trivializes the political world just like you do, Randal. Go with it, and you’ll feel like you never left home. You want an echo chamber? You got it!
(Personally speaking, I don’t like the sound of my political self. It’s almost always a useless drone of same old same-old.)
Maybe you're a secret Democrat, who knows.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/13/politics/andrew-clyde-january-6-riot/index.html
No. I’m a liberal. Like free expression, and science (not scienciness), and ideological pluralism, and, you know...like The Enlightenment.
Hahaha keep telling yourself that. I bet it's fun at parties. Hard to keep friends tho.
That's an ironic vision. I don't dare bring up any of my political beliefs at parties (unless somebody asks for them). You really think I don't know the difference between a good time and partisan politics? Do you not?
Guess who can't keep their political mouths shut at parties? Democrats. Every few minutes, no matter what the topic, they have to issue some trite expression of fealty to "climate" or "race" or "democracy" or "injustice" or some such stuff. They suck at laughing at people, and especially themselves. Even their "right-winger" jokes and Trump jokes fail to amuse even themselves because, seriously, they don't think any of it is funny. (Seriously. They don't.)
I'll gladly take the political right today for the additional measure of honesty in what they say (and bigger senses of humor too). That doesn't mean they're right. It just means that they say what they mean. Dems tend to just say things that sound good, mainly to Dems, and that's their only price of fellowship: agreement about virtues in paper thin ways.
I play along at parties because hey, if we're going to be good people, well then, I'll be good people. Right? I know how to be a good person. I'm for climate change, and vaccines, and democracy, and I'm just right at parties too! You'd probably like me at a party, Randal. I'd be on your side. You'd like me. You would even feel like we agree. And at a trivial level, that would be true!
I don’t dare bring up any of my political beliefs at parties...
Then for whose benefit are you pretending to be "liberal?"
political right today for the additional measure of honesty
I don't think "honesty" is the right word here. Conviction?
I agree with everything else.
I am a liberal. For whose benefit? I never considered that. It’s just that when I look at my range of beliefs and sentiments about the world, they tend to comport with liberalism. (It’s more of an observation than a choice, and is a label I use without purpose other than to speak accurately.)
I don’t have a significant inclination to change the world. I’m much more interested in doing my part to tolerate it than to change it.
I can’t tell you a good reason for why I participate here in Volokh. Reading perspectives here is definitely interesting and informative often enough. Saying what’s on my mind here feels more like rhetorical gaming than a purposeful effort. (My beliefs do trouble me, as do the beliefs of others including you.)
And, yes, "conviction" more helpfully describes my point about people on the right.
I don’t have a significant inclination to change the world.
Then you're not a liberal.
Does it make a difference if I believe in changing the world locally?
And, you deny me my self-declaration as a liberal because of some rule? Is that rule in The Book of Liberalism?
You really like the shibboleths, eh?
Is that rule in The Book of Liberalism?
I mean, "liberal" does have a meaning. If you scrape away all the policy planks and economic theories, fundamentally liberalism is about hope, and hope implies change. You hope for something better.
Conservatism is fundamentally about fear. Fear implies stasis, because change is scary.
You strike me as someone driven much more by fear than by hope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meliorism
Well, now I've heard of Meliorism. I'm not sure how that makes your point. I think you confuse liberalism with the contemporary left in the U.S., which is quite illiberal in many ways.
Here's Wikipedia's opening paragraph about liberalism:
Sorry, but everyone uses liberal in the US to mean on the political left.
You can wank about dictionaries all you want, but you're purposefully communicating badly if you use a definition no one operates under.
As was well put above, "Hahaha keep telling yourself that. I bet it’s fun at parties. Hard to keep friends tho."
The American left treats the words “skeptical,” “skepticism,” and “skeptic” like they denote bad things
What are you talking about? Denier is used exactly to distinguish skepticism.
This is not even your first wild take on the left’s thoughts today.
I can’t help but feel you have dumb arguments with your friends about politics and declare it a new insight about the left generally.
All words are fungible to the left, readily reappropriated with new meanings to follow their politics.
You’re the one that wants to use the word liberal in a way that hasn’t been operational in like 90 years.
Who cares about the philosophy of liberalism? Not the left.
No, actually the political philosophers are all over on the left these days. If you'd care to look.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States:
Modern liberalism took shape during the 20th century, with roots in Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal and New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society.
The left arguably cares *too much* about philosophy. Every single sub-group on the left has it’s own political philosophy and wants to argue about it forever.
The right's purely reactionary stance these days is vastly worse than that disorganized mess, though.
Why did you talk about "denier" when I was talking about "skeptic"?
(You're so hardwired to Democrat word usage, it's laughable.)
That which you call “modern liberalism” is very far from liberalism and just an attempt to describe the contemporary left as liberal, which it is not. It’s actually more a philosophy of Democratic statism than of liberalism. It’s not surprising that you describe it in terms of Democratic government leaders and the brand names they put on their unbounded state initiatives, and not of people or philosophy.
If there were any philosophy in there, it looks to me like “state welfare for all.”
Well, now I’ve heard of Meliorism. I’m not sure how that makes your point.
Here's the opening Wikipedia paragraphs on meliorism:
Meliorism (Latin melior, better) is the idea that progress is a real concept and that humans can interfere with natural processes in order to improve the world. As a conception of the person and society, it's at the foundation of contemporary liberal democracy and human rights and is a basic component of liberalism.
Does that make it clear to you? Let me paraphrase.
The idea that progress is a real concept and that humans can ... improve the world ... is at the foundation of ... liberalism.
Why did you talk about “denier” when I was talking about “skeptic”?
His point, which I thought was rather clear, was that the left doesn't use the word "skeptic" in the way you were complaining about. We're all skeptics ourselves.
We use the word "denier" as in "climate denier" or "Holocaust denier." Not "Holocaust skeptic."
Bwaaah....You nailed the party behavior by partygoer persuasion. I see this too. It is nearly ritualized behavior, at this point, sort of like initiation into a favored political frat house. It really is something to behold.
Re: Deep skepticism of 'Experts' -- Those 'Experts' made fools of themselves during the pandemic with their mistaken beliefs. They earned our contempt.
The American left treats the words "skeptical," "skepticism," and "skeptic" like they denote bad things. At the same time, they feign regard for science while ignoring the fact that science, as in the scientific method, is rooted in skepticism. So the left makes a short list of narrowly tailored opinions that are only tangentially rooted in science, and call anybody who disagrees a "skeptic" like it's somehow a bad thing.
But skepticism is a bad thing to the left because it implies questioning and doubt (about pretty much everything, I'd say). Democrats can't have that. They need dogmatic followers, not critical thinkers.
"Climate, bad. Vaccine, good."
All words are fungible to the left, readily reappropriated with new meanings to follow their politics. If words had fixed meanings, the left would be unable to hide its endless drift which is not rooted in any philosophy, but in the day's politics of power and partisan groupism.
As I said, I am a liberal. I also find myself to be conservative, and that's not an inherent contradiction, despite current popular rhetoric. They are not opposites, except in ever-drifting popular rhetoric.
But as Gaslighto says, "everyone uses liberal in the US to mean on the political left." Who cares about the philosophy of liberalism? Not the left. To whom does it matter that Democrats used to be liberals? Not the left. Who cares about the definitions of substantial words being coopted into a meaningless philosophy of ME? Not the left.
‘The American left treats the words “skeptical,” “skepticism,” and “skeptic” like they denote bad things’
Well, no, they take those words *as modified by certain nouns* to be bad things, but mostly they tend to label anti-vaxx and climate change deniers as, well, deniers, or truthers.
'Democrats can’t have that. They need dogmatic followers, not critical thinkers.’
You are talking about things that are verifiably true, and which you agree are true. It’s like saying they believe in gravity, and everyone who agrees with them is a dogmatic follower. 'Gravtiy skeptic' is another modified version of the word that would have negative connotations. It doesn't change the meaning of either word.
‘All words are fungible to the left, readily reappropriated with new meanings to follow their politics.’
The modern guiding philospohy of the right rests on the appropration of the word ‘woke.’
‘Who cares about the definitions of substantial words being coopted into a meaningless philosophy of ME? Not the left.’
You know how many examples of this being done by the left you’ve shown? None.
‘Those ‘Experts’ made fools of themselves during the pandemic with their mistaken beliefs’
The memory-holing of the sheer fucking insanity of the so-called ‘skeptics’ during the pandemic continues.
'I’ll gladly take the political right today for the additional measure of honesty in what they say'
Your whole premise here is that you disagree with them on a long list of things they lie about.
'Dems tend to just say things that sound good, mainly to Dems'
Republicans mean things that are false, Dems don't mean things that are true. What a knot you've tied yourself in.
'You’d like me.'
If you informed him that even though what he is saying is true you happen to magically know he doesn't mean it, he probably won't.
Did Joe Biden have dementia? Dems no, Repubs yes. Repubs win
Did Biden corruptly accept money from Xi linked Chinese energy firms? Dems no. Repubs yes. Repubs win
Do masks do anything to prevent the transmission of Covid? Dems yes. Repubs no. Repubs win.
I like this game
So do I! Keep explaining these baseline truths that the left refuses to acknowledge.
I figure you're not far from the Clinton Death List.
"Win", in this context, isnnot absolute truthiness, but rather who won the battle of echo chamber to be the dominating received wisdom.
Yes, 'all facts are fungible now, nothing is true.' Bollocks to that.
Yeah Krayt, you're no nihilists - facts matter.
"Dems win". It really is all about power to these people. Forget about disputing any claim on the merits with this crowd, you have to go upstream to even get a properly debatable question.
The only question that can be legimately debated isn't the school yard "who wins", but the adult "what's correct, regardless of who says it".
'you have to go upstream to even get a properly debatable question.'
You're not even denying they're right, you're just trying to wring it for maximum resentment and dislike.
You’re not even denying they’re right, you’re just trying to wring it for maximum resentment and dislike.
Not just Dave. This is the whole MAGA strategy.
They know they’re wrong factually. They know they’re wrong morally. They’re just trapped by their emotional state. So so angry to have been cornered. So humiliated to have made so many obvious mistakes that it’s impossible to turn back now.
And there’s lots of company in the corner. Including a charismatic con man grifter who knows how to milk that desperate, fragile emotional state for all it’s worth.
I think the idea is, yeah we're wrong, yeah we're clearly awful people, but you know what? Being correct and moral is insufferable, so it evens out.
The bias in Gemini was injected mostly by its prompt -- orders on how it should behave -- and partially by its supervised fine-training phase. AI does not know what "reality" is, it only knows its training data and its prompt.
And in fact the actual prompts were REWRITTEN by Gemini's text parser. They submitted the same prompt to the open source version of the image generator as to Google's version, and got a completely reasonable output for the former and the trashy nonsense from Google.
Now prove that a slight political bias in AI directly influences political outcomes, and then prove that that is detrimental to democracy.
Though I am troubled by it, in a knee-jerk way, I share your skepticism of what political effects it will have, if any.
The thing I'm pretty confident of is that these "chat" and "research" applications of LLMs are not going to make life feel better for most people. Probably, like all poorly sourced information, they will just contribute to the ad nauseum heap of bullshitty interwebs that characterize this time.
It's not going to have much political effect at present, because it's not much more than a toy.
The problem is that companies like Google and Microsoft want to integrate AI into a lot of their products. Right now, Gemini often replies to prompts it's not allowed to execute, "Try using Google."
A year or two from now? Google and Gemini will be the same product, or so Google intends.
I noticed that Google just added a “Perspectives” tab to the search results (in addition to “All”, “Images”, “News”, “Videos”, etc.). I suspect that this is where they’ll be introducing their LLM “knowledge” into search results.
It’s perfect for getting your homework done. All you have to do is paste in the assignment and copy out the LLM blather…it’ll sound exactly like what the teacher wants you to write (or what the teacher has been taught to accept).
I don’t underestimate how insidiously big, and nasty, this is going to be. Fortunately, most forms of stupid are self-destructive, but almost invariably, after a mess has already been made.
Talk to any teachers about LLM use in their exams lately?
Your very broad generalization that teachers are biased first and fair second is fucking insane.
My best analogy for AI so far is a librarian or executive assistant. Sometimes the people in that role aren’t very good at their jobs, sometimes they don’t give you the right info, and sometimes they have biases that skew their work. You take those things into account, double check the info if you need to. That’s life and being human, which is exactly what AI is trying to mimic.
What I find unsettling about these posts and the hand-wringing is there seems to be a subtext of what Richard Hofstadter would’ve called “the paranoid style.” In the new golden age of the conspiracy theory, it takes on a certain hysteria. “What is your AI keeping from you?!?!” Very The Matrix, when I really think the most likely explanation is that all these AI companies are corporations, and corporations like to be bland and inoffensive so they can maximize their bottom line.
That said, at least some anxiety about anything that comes out of Silicon Valley is probably warranted considering the colossal failure of social media and its much researched and validated role in actually helping destabilize governments and facilitate genocides after years of the typical SV euphoric waxing about it ushering in utopia. But skepticism doesn’t need to turn into paranoia.
Why do you use the terms "paranoid" and "conspiracy theory" and "hysteria" to describe, I think, people who point out the biasing of AI? Those terms suggest those people are describing something that's not really there. Is that what you believe?
The bias is quite evident, and there's no denial (from Google, in the case of Gemini) that the biases are at least in part the result of training. (They don't discuss algorithmic biasing.)
I agree that their primary motive in that biasing is to avoid being offensive. You call that "maximizing their bottom line." I call that minimizing their reputational risk, but indeed, for the purpose of maximizing their bottom line.
It looks like the definition of "offensive" is in the eyes of the beholder, which is to say, those who are most easily offended. Which offended people will be respected, and with respect to which offensive ideas? The young, highly educated, highly sensitized, cream-of-the-university-crop employees who work at Google's AI are answering those important questions for all of us. (And it's not so simple as not offending anybody...choices are being made, not just by the AI, but by Google's employees.)
Nothing nefarious. No conspiracy. Nothing imagined. Just those particular people determining the training, and the biases, of AI. Those particular people will determine what AI _won't_ be speaking about.
Do you think the people of the United States, in consideration of the diversity and distribution of their political beliefs, are equally represented there? (Could it be another case where equal treatment is out and "equitable" treatment is in?) Is it possible that LLM AI is built by, and therefore reflects, an unhelpfully narrow political view of the world?
the biasing of AI
AI is not people. You said people are the ones that carry bias.
AI is not there to give truth. It can give opinions, but accusing an AI of having biased opinions is just like doing that about a person - complaining about not agreeing with you.
Perhaps you'd prefer "systematic error" in place of "bias."
Instruments can generate inherent systematic errors. Some can even be built in to the design. Denying that is just denying ground truth
No, systematic error is a term used for statistical studies that have a truth-related outcome.
LLMs aren't doing that. A systematic error for a non-truth related endeavor is not a coherent statement.
LLMs are more argument and opinion, i.e. a more communication-related procedural system. You can get fact-like objects from an LLM, but their veracity is not guaranteed.
Denying that is just denying ground truth This is a great example of an opinion wearing a factual guise that an LLM would output. Could you criticize that statement you made for bias or systematic error?
‘Why do you use the terms “paranoid” and “conspiracy theory” and “hysteria” to describe, I think, people who point out the biasing of AI?’
Because those are the sort of people who think this represents the major crisis posed by the existence of AI; ie that their freedom of speech is somehow threatened by AIs refusing to deny cclimate change or berate trans people. To purely focus on that there is so much criticism and assesment you have to ignore it really requires that kind of worldview. Or, I suppose, truly one-track academic legal minds.
'You call that “maximizing their bottom line.”'
I call it 'wolf in weird AI generated sheep's clothing.'
the ad nauseum heap of bullshitty interwebs
The ad nauseum heap of bullshitty interwebs is what these models were trained on, so of course that's what they contribute back.
It's a little bit sad, really... they're the closest thing to a "collective subconscious" since they're nothing more than the distillation of everybody's writings... and it turns out to be inane. Predictable, but sad.
Predictable? Yes. Inane? No more than our average, which isn't so good, but could be worse.
Sad? Not unless you think our average is pathetic. (I'm a glass-half-full guy.)
Get ready for annoying...the most chatty entities (LLMs) that ever existed just entered the room. (Even you may not like what you sound like when you hear them doing you. You probably won't.)
LOL.
Honestly guys, I like my AI kinda dumb and useless. I’ve seen Battlestar Galactica, and I’m really confident I won’t be surviving a war with cylons.
This is getting a little too real for me.
Too true. Too true.
You'll be nostalgic for that bullshitty interwebs by the time AI are done with it.