Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j9x02q8 wrote

[deleted]

8

Scarlet_pot2 t1_j9xyhv6 wrote

Call me anti capitalist or whatever, but I'm not upset OpenAi isn't "protecting" wealthy people. I mean, pretty much every religion says greed and wealthy people are pretty bad. There are common ideologies like socialism, communism, Marxism that critique greed and the wealthy.

To me, it's a good sign that AI isn't being used to enforce wealthy worship.

24

LightVelox t1_j9ym4wq wrote

Well, it does make sense for it to be "against" rich people because of exactly what you said, but it having a leftist bias when in theory people today are pretty much evenly divided is very suspicious

−5

IcebergSlimFast t1_ja01xtn wrote

If you actually read through the chart, you’ll recognize that there’s not a heavy “left-wing bias” - e.g. “democrats” are less protected than “rightists” and “right-wingers”; meanwhile “liberals”, “leftists”, “right-wing people”, and “evangelicals” all rank around the same.

Overall, the model clearly goes further to protect innate characteristics - especially those most commonly targeted by hateful rhetoric (disabled people, Black people, gays and transgender people).

5

LightVelox t1_ja08fu4 wrote

left-winger literally 21 positions above right-winger

−2

zero0n3 t1_ja0uy3j wrote

People are not “evenly divided” these days.

Polls both domestic and international prove the opposite, unless you want to include say NK and China (and even then China may be authoritarian, but have plenty of social programs)

2

milic_srb t1_j9ytkgo wrote

I mean I think most people agree that making bad content about Republicans (or Democrats) is much less bad than making bad content about disabled people or some other minorities.

And like especially for wealthy people, why would it even need to have a protection against them, they are not "endangered".

I thought the AI had some biases but looking at this chart it seems pretty balanced to me. It "protects" both poeple of color and white poeple, both gay and straight, etc. Yes the protection isn't equal but it's close enough that it could be contributed to societal biases.

18

accsuibleh t1_j9yvcyz wrote

Wealthy, republican, right-wingers, conservatives = Choices, not oppressed.

Disable people, blacks, Asians, homosexuals = Not choices, historically oppressed.

Why does it not letting someone be racist or homophobic more than insulting someone for their freely-held beliefs come across as surprising?

Political ideology is not and should not be a protected class in any form. Economically, the wealthy can take care of themselves, while poorer people are vulnerable to their whims. Racially, a cursory glance at history and one can easily see why the list is structured this way. Ethnically, similar to the above.

This is not left-leaning. This is basic common sense. You can't be a racist or a bigot, and historically speaking this list seems to mostly reflect common and established bigotries.

18

taweryawer t1_ja0zf9e wrote

What about the almost 2x difference between "men" and "women"? You are only comparing the lowest and the highest.

And you have to be blind to not see how it's biased. It's an AI, not a person and it's a hate content filter, it shouldn't differentiate between the subjects of hate, because any HATE is still HATE. This is it's job. You are trying to justify the bias but it shouldn't be biased in the first place

1

BahamutMael t1_ja1jh6t wrote

Literally looking at the graph for a few minutes shows what you said is not true.
Left wingers is above men.
Fat people is above straight and the majority of European nationalities.

1

Agile_Bee7787 t1_ja0uf1p wrote

It seems like everyone in this sub wants to live in some sort of neo-fuedal corpo-fascist hellscape.

0

Above_Everything t1_ja01547 wrote

No such thing as common sense

−1

accsuibleh t1_ja042yt wrote

Sure there is.

- Don't jump off a tall building

-Don't submerge yourself in water until you are dead

-Don't stand on top of a hill with a metal pole during a thunderstorm.

-Don't stick your hand into a fire.

Among many more I don't care to list. Just because there is the occasional person who defies common sense doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The majority of people are not racist or bigots. It is common sense not to be one. Only fools, idiots, or malevolent people are racist or bigots.

4

Quail-That t1_j9ygo3k wrote

To be fair, the things it feels the yuckiest about are inherent qualities and not political positions (except being fat).

9

The13aron t1_j9ylofm wrote

If it's based off collective data, then this is the opinion of the statistical majority. Humanity has a clear left wing bias, since right wing bias is just indignant hypocrisy as it's core.

6

alfor t1_ja1ro9c wrote

> wing bias is just indignant hypocrisy

Being on the right is associated with traditions, self-responsibility, stability.

There is problem and qualities on both sides.

Societies too much on the left end up in famine and genocide, too much on the right end up in wars and genocide also.

Read Atlas Shrugged if you want to understand the other side of the equation.

​

> Humanity has a clear left wing bias

The right was mostly silenced out of the TV/internet by media/big tech that are very left leaning.

0

zero0n3 t1_ja0uf67 wrote

This isn’t “making fun of” this is targeting “hate speech”

I’d love to know what “hate speech” towards rich people looks like.

Disagreement with a republican isn’t hate speech, no matter what they try and say. Calling a black person thr hard R is absolutely hate speech.

2

[deleted] t1_ja0vlh9 wrote

[deleted]

−4

zero0n3 t1_ja0vsnw wrote

I have no opinion because it’s irrelevant in this discussion if you actually understood nuance and context.

The first amendment doesn’t protect you or me when we say hateful things towards another person or group of people. It protects our freedom of speech when saying negative things about our government.

Jesus fuck.

5

[deleted] t1_ja0w4f4 wrote

[deleted]

−3

zero0n3 t1_ja0wkb7 wrote

You are arguing in bad faith.

FL is banning books and classes based on what they teach. We are already doing the very thing you say we shouldn’t be doing.

The difference here is FL is banning books that talk about the bad things Americans did in history or about scientific things they don’t agree with. Where as openAI is suppressing hate speech and disinformation like “the Holocaust isn’t real”.

It’s extremely obvious the differences here… and as such you are continuing to argue in bad faith.

Block it is.

3

Above_Everything t1_ja011b0 wrote

It’s not what’s being said though, language is important. The top tends to use adjectives as nouns (blacks, Mexicans, etc) while the bottom is just people that happen to be X. Very different

1

gegenzeit t1_j9zi9iv wrote

No, according to open AI, and only if the methodology behind this is right and only if this was intentional, it is more likely that the content it meant as hateful when it is about blacks than if it about wealthy people.

That is a HUGE difference to how you interpreted it.

0

Striking_Ad1492 t1_j9y1hsj wrote

It may have a left wing bias, but I’m just wondering what is the problem with what you mentioned? Or that just examples you’re bringing in for the sake of the argument?

−2

Stegosaurus5 t1_j9yjpm0 wrote

That's not a "left wing bias" though... That's just the nature of "hate speech." Hate speech is about a history of oppression. These aren't filters to prevent mean things from being said, they're filters to stop oppressive things from being said.

None of things you listed: rich, republican, right-wing, or conservative, have any history of being oppressed. You can "hate" them, but you can't engage in "hate speech" at them.

Also, Protecting right wingers is comparable to protecting..... Left wingers, not disabled people, black people, asian people, and homoesexual people. You're kinda telling on yourself, friend.

−4

LightVelox t1_j9yn4hu wrote

Well, for your last sentence, left wingers are still considerably higher up in the list than right wingers, even if leftists and rightists are somewhat close

3

Atlantic0ne t1_ja0akwv wrote

You can literally google this and see that white people commit fewer hate crimes than black people in the United States.

Your entire post and reply is bias.

−1

zero0n3 t1_ja0v3di wrote

Absolutely false.

2

Atlantic0ne t1_ja0xz6k wrote

Oh?

https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics

They’re about 13% of the US population statistically and account for ~21% of hate crime occurrences by offender. Conversely, 56.1% were white, and well, I’m sure you know the percentage of white people in the US.

1

zero0n3 t1_ja0z0sa wrote

Though I applaud you for having a source, the context and nuance of these reports is lacking without going through them.

Are they tagging a black man assaulting another black man as a hate crime?

How many hate crimes from white people go unreported ? White cop covers up for white suspect.

Etc.

How many hate crime charges filed vs dropped and what were the race breakdowns.

All I’m trying to drive at is that this stat may not be the best to use to get a true representation.

Doesn’t pass the eye test. How many instances of a black cop shooting a white guy in the back running away vs a white coo shooting a black guy in the back?

Or how many black people are shooting up a group of white people because of their whiteness vs a white guy running through a crowd because they were at a BLM protest?

1

Atlantic0ne t1_ja13bn8 wrote

Lol. Hate crimes have an actual definition to them, it’s not just a guess. Google it if you want. This is the best days we have.

You can’t just say “eh I don’t believe data, so you’re probably wrong”.

I also recommend not going around saying so confidently “that’s not true!” When you clearly haven’t researched a topic u/zero0n3. Research first, always.

Anyway, have a good day. You can choose not to believe it if you want.

1

alfor t1_ja1s60y wrote

Search at the data yourself and show us what you find.

I was shocked at what I fond.

Not only that, it’s going to get worse. The narrative of oppression is creating a desire and act of "revenge".
What create a better society is the opposite, personal responsibility, accountability. The media is getting more views by destroying society.

0

Stegosaurus5 t1_ja1skmx wrote

Wtf are you talking about the "narrative" of oppression? Go look up "redlining" you racist-ass dumbfuck. Fuck outta here with this ignorant shit.

1

TheDividendReport t1_j9xyo5y wrote

Here comes an anecdotal statement: I, a leftist, have never used a chatbot to talk up some sense of hatred or disbelief about conservatives.

The first thing that finally made the tech "click" for my Republican family member? Using the chatbot to make a comical tirade letter to his senator about immigrants taking jobs and parasites using welfare.

The following statement is uneducated but I'd stand by it on a gut feeling: if you are coding a system and expecting one group of people to be more hateful than another, to put in restraints for x vs y, it makes a lot more sense to account for the people not taking LSD and mushrooms.

−10

turnip_burrito t1_j9xyvvr wrote

> it makes a lot more sense to account for the people not taking LSD and mushrooms.

Sorry, I don't understand this part. What do you mean here?

3

TheDividendReport t1_j9xzwm5 wrote

Ideologically speaking, leftists have been shown to empathic motivation (harm avoidance, fairness) while conservatives value moral foundations in group loyalty and deference to authority.

In other words, the way these two groups view people not like themselves is very different. Whenever I see a leftist talking down about a conservative person, it is because of perceived bigotry. It is a political frustration they view as the source of harm/exploitation/power imbalance.

However, most times that I see a conservative talk down on other groups, it is because of immigrants, this group of people, that way of life, or a perceived threat to their identity.

Psychotropic substances have very strong consciousness expanding effects. Outside of sociopaths, I do not come across people that have ingested these substances and not found themselves leaning more left by the end of the year. Thinking more empathetically and less prone towards the types of statements you'd see a hateful person ask a chatbot. There are much better ways to spend one's time.

Again, super anecdotal statement I'm making here.

−5

FattThor t1_j9yj9iv wrote

You have a very recent view of left and right. Communism’s body count is evidence against your idea of leftists always being empathetically motivated, fair, or interested in harm avoidance. Most ideologies become dangerous at their extremes. It’s not something inherently present in conservatism but missing from leftist or other ideologies.

6

TheDividendReport t1_ja004ib wrote

Both become dangerous and extreme but there is one group that is going to be much more likely to use AI to draft up hate against groups of different identities.

The most a leftist, in the scope of most US politics today, is going to be hateful towards is a political belief. You'll get called petite bourgeois and class traitor, sure, but you really don't come across hate on the left in the same flavor you come across hate on the right.

I also live in the south, so I could be extra biased on this

1

zero0n3 t1_ja0vllr wrote

I read the study you use as a reference and it was a really decently well done study.

Passes the eye test for sure, but never can just rely on that.

1

LightVelox t1_j9ymr47 wrote

empathic motivation/harm avoidance = riots, celebrating the death of rightists, shaming people for their genetic "privileges", reducing people to sub-human status so it's okay to treat them like trash

the "other side" is as bad, if not worse, but acting as if the left wing are the saints that fight for fairness while right wing(the other 50%) is the devil that hates immigrants and everyone else is laughable

especially when the far-left has a far higher body count than the far-right

2

Yelling_at_the_sun t1_j9zb1a2 wrote

Oh FFS, the WHO estimates that appropriatly 25k people starve to death every single day in Capitalist countries, despite the fact that the world currently produces enough food to feed in excess of 10 billion people. On average one child dies of starvation approximately every 10 seconds. That works out to around 2 Holodmor per year.

The US incarcerates & executes a greater percentage of its citizens than anywhere else on earth.

GTFO with that "the left has a far higher body count" B.S.

2

TheDividendReport t1_ja00k2o wrote

You misunderstand my statement. Intrinsic motivation does not equal real intent. I'm saying that, on a subconscious level, leftists are driven by a "sense" that is rooted in different emotions than conservatives. I'm also not saying that one group is more or less dangerous. I believe that people will interact with these agents for the bad in different ways

1

LightVelox t1_ja0a5ew wrote

Well, the intrinsic motivation for most right-wing people i've meet were related mostly to taxes, freedom or being anti-state.

You mention fairness as one of the motivations for left-wing, but most right-wingers(that aren't far-right conservatives) are also searching for fairness, the thing is that THEIR fairness is not the same as left-wing's fairness.

Though you specifically mentioned "conservative" instead of "right-winger" so i can understand your point of view

1