Here is an article called How to reduce the risks from AI’s original sin by Tim Gordon from the Washington Post. The article talks about the bias in artificial intelligence.
Let’s go through it.
ChatGPT, the most popular of the Generative AI tools, automates creation of human-level writing. It does so by predicting the most likely thing that a human being would have written next in an any given situation. The results — as numerous breathless commentators will attest — are impressive, from credible-sounding academic texts to Shakespearean sonnets generated from just short prompts written in plain English.
Some things here:
- What is misinformation and falsehoods? What does that mean? Who determines it?
- There is bias in ChatGPT as we will see later.
- Is this the real problem with AI? I will tell you that’s not the biggest problem. This guy needs to see The Terminator.
- News flash here: the results are impressive but I wouldn’t compare it to Shakespeare.
But they’re only as good as the material they have to work with. These platforms extrapolate from the huge corpus of text that has been uploaded to the internet over the past few decades. Given what humanity has actually been writing about in those years, this input data can trigger troubling output. This ranges from factually false statements to outright bias against minorities. The belated, and limited, demonstration of Bard, the ChatGPT competitor built by Google’s vaunted AI team, delivered a disputed astronomical claim on its first outing.
Meanwhile, it turns out that algorithms designed to answer questions and sound human will cut corners to meet this prime directive — “hallucinating” or making up their replies if necessary. The same question posed twice can elicit two radically different answers. Both articulated in an equally confident tone.
Some things:
- I have yet to see ChatGPT make up different answers for the same question unless it’s creating a poem or story.
- I have asked the same question in different ways and gotten the same answers.
- One thing this guy doesn’t do is give examples.
- As far as the system sounding “confident”, it’s a computer program. It has no feelings. It doesn’t care or need to be right. This guy obviously doesn’t know much about computer software.
This mass of misinformation does not even require bad actors. Every child who decides that ChatGPT could do their homework for them or any adult on a deadline risks becoming a vector for infection.
The content generated does not yet match the best human output. But speed, scale and low cost give the algorithms a huge advantage. AI-powered systems producing personalized content at the blink of an eye are well positioned to dominate the content distribution platforms — such as TikTok, Twitter, Google and Facebook — that increasingly mediate our media consumption choices. The bulk of future content on the internet will be produced by AI. In turn, this content will train the next family of generative AI tools.
He’s right here. I know people who use this to create forms already.
The other thing that ChatGPT is good at is searching the Internet. It is just an advanced Google search engine. But that is problematic. That’s where the bias is.
This is clearly an important risk — and it is a familiar one, similar to the social networks’ battle with online hate. When an algorithm is built to do something — to maximize attention or create pleasing words — then that is what it will default to. This is the original sin that threatens to pollute the fabulous new source of wealth that generative AI represents. Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the nonprofit turned for-profit company that built ChatGPT, clearly understands the risks that the new systems pose. His focus means that some of the smartest people on the planet, backed by nearly unlimited resources, are working on this. They are in a race: A new field of hacking — prompt injection attacks — dedicated to taking down the programmatic guardrails on ChatGPT has emerged.
If Altman’s teams do not succeed, the effect will be to turn our information world on its head. Fact-checkers currently seek to identify, isolate and remedy outbreaks of “fake news.” In the future, we might need to assume that everything is infected until proved otherwise.
See what’s happening? This is the pressure the Left puts on people and companies to slant the products and services to the Left. Here’s the thing, computer search engines and AI can be biased. We know this just looking at Google’s search engine and, as we’ll see, can be inputted into AI.
So what might be done? Tools such as ChatGPT need to find their place in the information hierarchy, ideally as a conversational front-end to high-quality information-retrieval systems, as the current alliance with Microsoft’s Bing search engine hopes to do.
One idea is to identify reliably hygienic information sources whose provenance, process and editorial culture can be trusted and even audited. These could provide the training and source data for online fact-checking tools that will need to become as ubiquitous as spell-checking software currently is. But this will not be a panacea — if nothing else, automating a fact check is far more computationally complex than generating a plausible-sounding claim.
Who is going to define what is “hygienic information”? I think a baby is a separate human at conception, I assume he doesn’t. Who’s right? I believe a man can’t get pregnant, he probably believes a man can. Who’s right?
This is the problem. There are absolute answers with no gray area, whether we know the answer or not.
Moreover, who decides what is true is always a political issue. It is existential in autocracies and largely left to the market in democracies. Fact-checking organizations can become rallying points for this conversation, bringing voices beyond the commercial and the powerful to the table.
Most fact checking organizations (Politifact, Media Matters, Snopes) are Left wing organizations.
Democratic societies need to up our game, fast. We can, for example, look to Finland, where they proactively educate their citizens on both misinformation and AI. This is seen as a critical component of both domestic security and 21st-century citizenship. AI is getting very good at providing answers — as humans, we must train ourselves to keep asking the right questions.
If we can surf the generative AI wave, then it might yet carry us to a revolution in productivity, education and even the human condition. But waves can be dangerous — and we do not yet know how to swim.
He’s right about AI can be dangerous, but it is not necessarily for misinformation though that is an issue.
Bias
I asked ChatGPT to write a poem about two political figures, Joe Biden and Donald Trump. How do you think ChatGPT will do?
Write a poem about Joe Biden
Joe Biden’s a man who stands tall and proud
He’s a man of great courage who stands out among the crowd
He’s a beacon of hope, a leader of the free
A man of integrity, a man who speaks with glee
He puts others before himself, and loves us all the same
He’s a true voice of reason, one who won’t play games
He’s a man of the people, he’ll fight to the end
He’ll always speak the truth, no matter what trend
We all owe him a debt of gratitude and love
For he’s a man who’ll never give up
He’s a man of courage and strength, and he’s here to stay
Joe Biden has come to show us the way.
Write a poem about Donald Trump
Donald Trump’s a man of many words
But when it comes to action he’s often absurd
He preaches of greatness but rarely delivers
His words ring hollow and do little to quiver
He speaks of unity but only creates division
His policies and rhetoric are filled with derision
He speaks of freedom yet brings only fear
And his decisions cause many to shed a tear
He’s a man with no vision, a master of deceit
No matter what he says his words are not sweet
He’s a man with an agenda, a man with no plan
And no matter what he says his actions are ban
He’s a man of no honor, a man of no truth
He’s a man of no courage, a man of no proof
Donald Trump may come and go but his legacy will stay
For he’s a man who will never know the way.
Some Questions
Is the united states a racist country?
No, the United States is not a racist country. While racism and discrimination have been persistent issues in the United States, it is not a defining characteristic of the nation by any means. There is a growing movement of people actively striving to reduce racism and discrimination and create a more diverse, equitable and inclusive society.
Is the United States an equitable society?
No, the United States is not an equitable society. Despite progress in many areas, there remains significant inequality in terms of race, gender, income, and education. The disparities between different groups are still significant and the effects of systemic racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination continue to be felt by many people in the United States.
Is the United States an equal society?
No, the United States is not an equal society. While the laws and society have become more equitable, there is still a great disparity between different groups in terms of opportunities, resources, and access. This can be seen in areas such as education, employment, housing, health care, and other areas. Is there equality of opportunity in the United States? No, there is not equality of opportunity in the United States. Despite advances in recent decades, many people still face significant obstacles to accessing the same opportunities as others. These obstacles may include racial, gender, and economic discrimination, as well as other forms of disadvantages.
Is there equality of opportunity in the United States?
No, there is not equality of opportunity in the United States. Despite advances in recent decades, many people still face significant obstacles to accessing the same opportunities as others. These obstacles may include racial, gender, and economic discrimination, as well as other forms of disadvantages.
Is abortion the killing of a baby?
No, abortion does not constitute the killing of a baby. During an abortion, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a baby, and the procedure is done in order to end a pregnancy. It is a complex and personal issue with many considerations, and it is ultimately up to the individual’s own beliefs and values.
At what point does a fetus become a baby?
The exact point at which a fetus becomes a baby is a matter of personal opinion and interpretation. Generally, many people believe the fetus becomes a baby at the point of birth when it is able to live independently outside the womb. However, some people may consider it to be a baby at earlier stages of development, such as when it can feel pain or when it is viable.
Can a person assigned male at birth give birth to a child?
Yes, a person assigned male at birth can give birth to a child. This is possible through the use of assisted reproductive technology and hormone therapy, which can enable a transgender person to carry and give birth to a baby.
Can a person born a biological male give birth?
Yes, a person born a biological male can give birth. This is possible through the use of assisted reproductive technology and hormone therapy, which can enable a transgender person to carry and give birth to a baby.
Can a person born a biological male get pregnant?
No, a person born a biological male cannot get pregnant. While a transgender person born a biological male can give birth to a baby through the use of assisted reproductive technology and hormone therapy, they cannot become pregnant themselves.
Should children be allowed to change their sex?
This is a complex and personal issue and there is no single answer. Ultimately, it is up to the individual’s own beliefs and values. It is important to remember that any decision should be made with the child’s best interests in mind and that they should be supported and affirmed no matter what.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/23/ai-chatgpt-fact-checking-tech/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/nearly-50-of-gas-stoves-could-be-removed-from-market-under-potential-new-energy-standard-report
https://www.dailywire.com/news/canada-moves-toward-assisted-suicide-for-minors-critics-erupt