Submitted by mossadnik t3_10sw51o in technology
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j749s9d wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in ChatGPT: Use of AI chatbot in Congress and court rooms raises ethical questions by mossadnik
>The bias that has been baked into this AI is overwhelming.
You can fix these sorts of data models. It's likely SEEING the bias already in the system and not thinking like a human to obscure the unpleasantness.
__OneLove__ t1_j74cv72 wrote
Hmmm...who exactly is 'fix[ing] these sort of data models'? 🤔
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j74gyii wrote
Um, the people developing the AI.
To create art with Stable Diffusion, people find different large collections of images to get it to "learn from" and they tweak the prompts and the weightings to get an interesting result.
"AI" isn't just one thing, and the data models are incredibly important to what you get as a result. A lot of times, the data is randomized at it is learned -- because order of learning is important. And, you'd likely train more than one AI to get something useful.
In prompts, one technique is to choose words at random and have an AI "guess" what other words are there. This is yet another "type of AI" that tries to understand human language. Lot's of moving parts to this puzzle.
People are confusing very structured systems, with Neural Nets, Expert systems. Deep Data, and creative AI that use random data and "remove noise" to approach many target images. The vocabulary in the mainstream is too limited to actually appreciate what is going on.
__OneLove__ t1_j74pyql wrote
Respectfully, smoke & mirrors imo...
TLDR;
Um, the people developing the AI. 🤦🏻♂️
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j77i4ch wrote
>TLDR;
It's really a shitty thing about reddit that the guy who makes that comment gets more upvotes than the person attempting to explain. "Smoke and Mirrors" -- how about which aspect of this are you saying that applies to? Be specific about the situation where they used AI to determine choices in business, society, planning. These are all different problems with different challenges and there are so many ways you can approach them with technology.
And, this concept that "AI do this" really has to go. They are more different in their approaches than people are. They are programmed AND trained. There's a huge difference between attempts to simulate creativity and attempts to provide the best response that is accurate, to making predictions about cause and effect. The conversation depth on this topic is remedial at best.
AI can absolutely be a tool here. It just takes work to get right. However, the main problem is the goals and the understanding of people. What are they trying to accomplish? Do they have the will to follow through with a good plan? Do the people in charge have a clue?
__OneLove__ t1_j77m3wj wrote
Look, don’t take it personally, ultimately, you’re stating ‘people’ (known to be naturally prone to bias) are going to ‘program the bias’ out of AI (speaks for itself imo). That was exactly the point I was making & apparently other sub members agree. Simply put, its such a poor argument imo, to the point that I am not willing to sit here & read paragraphs of text to the contrary. I don’t state that to offend you (whom I don’t know), I’m just keeping it 💯 from my perspective. You are obviously entitled to your opinion as well, hence my keeping my response short/succinct vs. trying to convince you otherwise.
At a minimum, I might suggest not taking these casual internet discussions with strangers so personally. Nothing more then a suggestion…
Peace ✌🏽
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j77rmew wrote
>vs. trying to convince you otherwise.
Yes, that would require you to know more about what you are saying. "Succinct" would require you to actually connect your short observation to SOMETHING -- what you did was little more than just say; "Not true!" and people didn't like my geek answer and how it made them feel so you got the karma. I really don't care about the Karma, I care about having a decent conversation. I can't do that with "Smoke & Mirrors" when I could apply it to at least a dozen different aspects of this situation, and I have no idea what the common person thinks. And the idea that people have one point of view at a time -- that's foreign to me as well.
>At a minimum, I might suggest not taking these casual internet discussions with strangers so personally.
Oh, you think my observation about "this is a shitty thing" is me being hurt? No. It's ANNOYING. It's annoying that ignorant comments that are popular get upvotes. Usually I cracking jokes and sneaking in the higher concepts for those who might catch them -- because sometimes that's all you can do when you see more than they seem to.
I could make a dick joke and get 1,000 karma and explain how to manipulate gravity and get a -2 because someone didn't read it in a textbook.
However, the ability for people to think outside the box has gotten better over time, and it's not EVERYONE annoying me with ignorance, just half of them. That's a super cool improvement right there!
__OneLove__ t1_j77tajo wrote
Please, by all means, keep both proving my point & justifying my unwillingness to engage with this passive aggressive dribble 🙂
...and yet this 🤡 continues to wonder/question why he warrants downvotes 🤔🤣✌🏽
Fake_William_Shatner t1_j78j1zv wrote
>why he warrants downvotes
Some people seem to think up and down votes prove the quality of the point being made. No, it's just the popularity in that venue at a given moment.
You could always explain what your comment meant. You don't have to, though. It's important not to take these comments too seriously. But, if you keep commenting on everything else BESIDES what you meant by "smoke and mirrors" then I will just not worry.
I have to commend you however on some top notch emoji usage.
__OneLove__ t1_j78jt4s wrote
Take care of yourself & have a nice life internet stranger. In the interim/simply put, I am blocking you. ✌🏽
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments