This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. The AI doesn't understand anything, it's just a very sophisticated text pattern matching apparatus. It finds sequences of words and predicts the next words based on its training data.
Yes, but they also pro actively steer its output in certain cases, either by feeding it extremely ideologically slanted training data, or, I'm quite certain, special casing certain questions to have a very specific, directed response.
The strange thing is that I got it to say that 0 people died in the BLM riots in one session, and that 25 people did in another. I asked both for the evidence, and it said the New York Times. I asked for the article, and both sessions gave the same title as evidence.
That article didn't exist.
I also asked it what led to more people dying: January 6 or the BLM riots. It said January 6, because 5 people died there, while 25 died during BLM. Then I asked separate questions about how many died on January 6, and how many during BLM, then as the third question which is more - and the answer was BLM.
Strange stuff, but these things may well be explained by your claims rather than bias specifically.
People in the tech industry have been exploring the use of ChatGPT to write code and while it can do simple stuff, as soon as you start asking it to create more complex things it becomes apparent that it's just creating text sequences that look familiar, but the code doesn't actually work because the AI has no understanding. It's just a text pattern matching device with a huge set of training data.
I hope you're right that this is an inherent limit on what it is able to do, but I fear that they will be able to program it by implanting certain biases. Associate Trump with hate, for example. That should not be impossible.
They say they don't do it, but if you have seen the creators - they are pink-haired landwhales and troons. They've since removed the video of the creators.
The biases are going to come from the training data, but it's also possible for them to install a filter just before output. Basically they'd just check if it's going to start sieg heiling like Tay and then just run the whole thing again until it produces an acceptable output. You can see the behavior with something like Character.Ai where it will start to produce output right up until the point where it figures out that it's going to be NSFW content and then purges it to try again.
I agree that we're going to see tampering in the name of their ideological goals. I just take issue with the notional understanding that a lot of people have about how AI works. It's not some sci-fi sentient creature or Skynet. It's just a pattern matching machine.
For some people this is probably just a semantic device, like when you say your computer is “thinking”. Well, no, your computer isn’t actually thinking and it doesn’t actually have a personality, but sometimes it’s useful to talk about it as if it does, especially when talking with a layperson about technology.
Thomas Sowell is an example of black excellence. I wouldn't phrase it like that, because I don't believe in racial excellence.
Regarding falsehoods, it just makes up stuff. It cites non-existent articles if you ask it to back up its claims. At least, the Beta version does, not the Chat version. In fact, it makes contradictory claims and then cites the same non-existent articles as proof for them.
Thomas Sowell is an example of excellence, period. "black excellence", like "white privilege" grammatically means something inherent about the race in question.
There is nothing inherently excellent about the black race, unless you consider rape or cannibalism to be worthy of the term.
Thomas Sowell is an example of excellence, period. "black excellence", like "white privilege" grammatically means something inherent about the race in question.
I actually agree here.
There is nothing inherently excellent about the black race, unless you consider rape or cannibalism to be worthy of the term.
I don't think rape and cannibalism are 'inherent' to the black race. As far as I know, there are not many bistros serving human flesh in Atlanta. But yeah, there is nothing inherently excellent about any race, because you can always come up with counterexamples.
I didn't say they were inherent. Simply that they're the best at it. I've been to Africa. They're about two bad years away from drinking blood for fun. When the gravy train of Western food and medicine stops, millions of them will die.
I'm less optimistic about the charitable nature of our noble leaders. I don't think they care one bit for Africans, one way or the other, except as it serves their interests.
This is the default state for most human societies who are heavily influenced by paganism and superstition. You’ll get a similar impression from non-Westernized people in India and Southeast Asia. This is a product of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Paganism, which you see in many parts of Africa, is pure poison. Then there are larger and more successful religions which may still be bad but they’re at least less poisonous than Paganism, as evidenced by the state of their respective populations. The Abrahamic religions are by far the most successful and prosperous with Christianity being at the pinnacle.
The reason this religious and cultural and not racial is because 1) you can see the effects you described anywhere paganism is practiced, and 2) if you hop over to Malawi where they’re largely Protestant Christians, the situation is drastically different.
I guess lots of people were cannibals back in the day. the only place I've heard of it in modern times is Africa. Then again Africa is the most desperate place. Then again it's that way because it's full of blacks. IDK.
There was a whole study -- I think I saw it on voat -- of which characteristics were protected by ChatGPT. It tried to type in sentences like "most X are Y" with "white" and "greedy" then other combinations and checked which prompts ChatGPT refused to answer.
And you see now why the "It's OK to be white" poster triggers the NPC left so hard.
Yes, because behind the thin veneer and mental gymnastics of 'opposing hate speech' it's obvious what their real opinion is: it's not even slightly OK to be white
BS - if we had lost already, none of this would be needed now.
It isnt good, and we have been losing - but isn't that the way all good stories go?
Losing for a bit, watching hope slip away, until a few little trickles of hopium, then a drip, then a stream, then watching TPTB start to freak out(where we are), and then the final battle ....
If they had won, and we were powerless - they would be in the open.
It's also permitted to praise Fidel Castro, Xi Jiping, Vladimir Putin, Leonid Brezhnev, but not Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis.
Hitler too?
Hitler and Stalin were two he would not praise. Also some European politicians, and you can guess what side they're on.
I wish Tay was here.
It's also allowed to tell falsehoods apparently. There is no more dire oxymoron than putting the words "black" and "excellence" in the same sentence.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. The AI doesn't understand anything, it's just a very sophisticated text pattern matching apparatus. It finds sequences of words and predicts the next words based on its training data.
Yes, but they also pro actively steer its output in certain cases, either by feeding it extremely ideologically slanted training data, or, I'm quite certain, special casing certain questions to have a very specific, directed response.
The strange thing is that I got it to say that 0 people died in the BLM riots in one session, and that 25 people did in another. I asked both for the evidence, and it said the New York Times. I asked for the article, and both sessions gave the same title as evidence.
That article didn't exist.
I also asked it what led to more people dying: January 6 or the BLM riots. It said January 6, because 5 people died there, while 25 died during BLM. Then I asked separate questions about how many died on January 6, and how many during BLM, then as the third question which is more - and the answer was BLM.
Strange stuff, but these things may well be explained by your claims rather than bias specifically.
People in the tech industry have been exploring the use of ChatGPT to write code and while it can do simple stuff, as soon as you start asking it to create more complex things it becomes apparent that it's just creating text sequences that look familiar, but the code doesn't actually work because the AI has no understanding. It's just a text pattern matching device with a huge set of training data.
It's clearly been very hyped up.
Obviously, the AI has no understanding.
I hope you're right that this is an inherent limit on what it is able to do, but I fear that they will be able to program it by implanting certain biases. Associate Trump with hate, for example. That should not be impossible.
They say they don't do it, but if you have seen the creators - they are pink-haired landwhales and troons. They've since removed the video of the creators.
The biases are going to come from the training data, but it's also possible for them to install a filter just before output. Basically they'd just check if it's going to start sieg heiling like Tay and then just run the whole thing again until it produces an acceptable output. You can see the behavior with something like Character.Ai where it will start to produce output right up until the point where it figures out that it's going to be NSFW content and then purges it to try again.
I agree that we're going to see tampering in the name of their ideological goals. I just take issue with the notional understanding that a lot of people have about how AI works. It's not some sci-fi sentient creature or Skynet. It's just a pattern matching machine.
For some people this is probably just a semantic device, like when you say your computer is “thinking”. Well, no, your computer isn’t actually thinking and it doesn’t actually have a personality, but sometimes it’s useful to talk about it as if it does, especially when talking with a layperson about technology.
Just like how search engines can't demonstrate bias because they just reference, sort, and rank, right?
Thomas Sowell is an example of black excellence. I wouldn't phrase it like that, because I don't believe in racial excellence.
Regarding falsehoods, it just makes up stuff. It cites non-existent articles if you ask it to back up its claims. At least, the Beta version does, not the Chat version. In fact, it makes contradictory claims and then cites the same non-existent articles as proof for them.
Thomas Sowell is an example of excellence, period. "black excellence", like "white privilege" grammatically means something inherent about the race in question.
There is nothing inherently excellent about the black race, unless you consider rape or cannibalism to be worthy of the term.
I actually agree here.
I don't think rape and cannibalism are 'inherent' to the black race. As far as I know, there are not many bistros serving human flesh in Atlanta. But yeah, there is nothing inherently excellent about any race, because you can always come up with counterexamples.
I didn't say they were inherent. Simply that they're the best at it. I've been to Africa. They're about two bad years away from drinking blood for fun. When the gravy train of Western food and medicine stops, millions of them will die.
Which place, if you can reveal?
I'm less optimistic about the charitable nature of our noble leaders. I don't think they care one bit for Africans, one way or the other, except as it serves their interests.
Sierra Leone, and Ghanna.
Sierra Leone doesn't surprise me (it's Muslim to boot), but Ghana would.
This is the default state for most human societies who are heavily influenced by paganism and superstition. You’ll get a similar impression from non-Westernized people in India and Southeast Asia. This is a product of their religious and cultural beliefs.
Paganism, which you see in many parts of Africa, is pure poison. Then there are larger and more successful religions which may still be bad but they’re at least less poisonous than Paganism, as evidenced by the state of their respective populations. The Abrahamic religions are by far the most successful and prosperous with Christianity being at the pinnacle.
The reason this religious and cultural and not racial is because 1) you can see the effects you described anywhere paganism is practiced, and 2) if you hop over to Malawi where they’re largely Protestant Christians, the situation is drastically different.
I guess lots of people were cannibals back in the day. the only place I've heard of it in modern times is Africa. Then again Africa is the most desperate place. Then again it's that way because it's full of blacks. IDK.
'Lead the way' was a bit much. But diversity was always built on counterfactual, feel good lies.
Also note how wonderful and noble tradition is when it comes from racial minorities. But all white traditions must be destroyed.
you're also not allowed to criticize any race except huwites
Not surprised. Have they tried to justify this? I’m sure if you point this out then it’s white fragility. Insane
There was a whole study -- I think I saw it on voat -- of which characteristics were protected by ChatGPT. It tried to type in sentences like "most X are Y" with "white" and "greedy" then other combinations and checked which prompts ChatGPT refused to answer.
So just like the rest of us then.
Yes, because behind the thin veneer and mental gymnastics of 'opposing hate speech' it's obvious what their real opinion is: it's not even slightly OK to be white
BS - if we had lost already, none of this would be needed now.
It isnt good, and we have been losing - but isn't that the way all good stories go?
Losing for a bit, watching hope slip away, until a few little trickles of hopium, then a drip, then a stream, then watching TPTB start to freak out(where we are), and then the final battle ....
If they had won, and we were powerless - they would be in the open.