Fascinating research, which incidentally, is verifiable simply by copying the sentence instances and trying it yourself. What is certainly the case, is that labelling and output restrictions are not entirely dependent on the input but on a hidden taxonomy of identity groups. We should all see the obvious problems with this
On a methodological note: p-values (irrespective of your opinion on them) only apply when the sample data is representative. The sentences used aren't.
This is something the right leaning groups have always been saying, but it is exciting that the article manages to come up with an empirical way to determine the "belief system" of the AI model.
People on the left shouldn't rejoice either. The left and the right wing are mostly the same, and both follow similar approaches to marginalize people who they feel are undesirable, so it'll eventually come back to bite the left too in due course.
I'm not sure what you have in mind, but there is definitely a propensity on the left to try to shut down any argument with "that's a right wing position". For example, opposition to CRT was largely a moderate/liberal thing before your average conservative even heard the term, but even then criticism was dismissed with "people who criticize CRT just want to say the N word / get their slaves back / etc". Similarly, conservatives were pretty quick to coin the term "Ferguson Effect" for the pattern of increasing violent crimes in areas that saw large-scale anti-police protests, so naturally academics and the media reflexively dismissed the notion out of hand, but now it seems like crime researchers have largely come around to that viewpoint (to be clear, I'm not criticizing skepticism of conservatives' initial claims, but rather the incurious, out-of-hand dismissal).
I don't know why you're being downvoted - you're right.
It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. It's people telling their viewers to harass Sandyhook parents, or participate in a violent insurrection, or something similar that gets censored.
Playing the victim card without acknowledging TOS violations is intentionally misleading.
> It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored.
When cancel culture was running amok, people were getting fired/reprimanded/harassed for advocating nonviolent protests over riots, for using Chinese words that sound vaguely like an English racial slur, for interviewing Black Americans whose opinions differ slightly from the official narrative about what a Black American ought to think, for throwing a geisha-themed party for your young daughter, for wearing a prom dress inspired by a traditional Chinese aesthetic, etc. None of these are remotely right-wing offenses.
This is the whole problem--the left harms people whose actions/opinions are well within the Overton Window and upon criticism, they retreat to some variation of "we're just opposing objectively horrible people!". This whole game hurts left-wing credibility and it easier for far-right viewpoints to enter the mainstream (is so-and-so an actual Nazi or are they just failing to completely toe the left-wing party line?). It's also just shitty behavior that makes people angry and pushes them rightward, and it does nothing to help left-wing causes.
When people say reprehensible things, they receive an amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is reasonable).
The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up. If your expectation is that 50% of backlash would be left leaning and 50% would be right leaning, I don't think that's reasonable, but if you think the backlash is because someone is conservative generally, you'd be mistaken.
There are a great many conservatives who can make their ideological arguments comfortably without being offensive. Conservative ideology isn't inherently offensive, but specific human beings say specific things that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out.
> When people say reprehensible things, they receive an amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is reasonable).
And also when people say not reprehensible things.
> The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up.
Then it's strange that it's been intimately connected with looming war against Russia and China, so many intelligence agencies have so many employees that spend 100% of their time on it, and so many congresspeople are making direct requests for censorship on political lines.
> When people say reprehensible things, they receive an amount of backlash as a result (sometimes more than is reasonable).
Sure, but we aren't talking about reprehensible things, we're talking about "advocating against political violence" and cultural appreciation.
> The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up
Because it's clearly about punishing deviation from a partisan line.
> If your expectation is that 50% of backlash would be left leaning and 50% would be right leaning, I don't think that's reasonable, but if you think the backlash is because someone is conservative generally, you'd be mistaken.
That's not my expectation, my expectation is that we don't persecute people for moderate beliefs (and no, caricaturing those beliefs to make them sound extreme doesn't count), nor do we tolerate said behavior.
> There are a great many conservatives who can make their ideological arguments comfortably without being offensive. Conservative ideology isn't inherently offensive, but specific human beings say specific things that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out.
As previously discussed, a lot of people are "calling out" others for utterly innocuous transgressions. For example, my state subreddit is presently arguing that families who homeschool their kids are closet Nazis (that's the very popular opinion on that particular subreddit).
I guess I'm not familiar with people who are falling into this category you're suggesting. Could you cite some specific examples?
I'm thinking of Kanye, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, etc. These people expressed reprehensible viewpoints and were subsequently removed from various platforms as a result. That's not politics; what they said was reprehensible regardless of political ideology. You can find people who expressed similar political thoughts without the hate, but the people I named can't figure out how to do that and therefore have been removed (to some degree or another) from the communal discourse.
Can you name others? I literally could not find the controversies for the first two, and it doesn’t appear anything worse than being fired from Google has happened to James Damore.
These links are just the first things that came up on Google to help you find what you’re looking for. I’m not claiming these links are the best sources.
They are both on wikipedia; I read them yesterday. On mobile now, but you can google them easily. They don’t have anything to do with conservatives views being suppressed because we weren’t talking about that. The original claim was that people who get “called out” have reprehensible views—I gave examples of people who were fired or harassed or etc for completely innocuous speech.
Oh dear, you think every comment on HN is a direct reply to the title? No, comments are arranged in a tree structure. For example, the comment you're reading right now is a reply to your previous comment, not to the title. It's not just HN that structures its comments this way--it's a very popular schema, so this bit of knowledge should be really helpful for you on your Internet adventures. Godspeed!
The comments were related to each other, and indirectly to the title. This discussion has descended into obtuseness, and I find obtuseness to be boring, so I’ll dip out.
James Damore was fired for violating his employee agreement with Google, because he said the reason you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable.
Even James confirmed as much. Trotting him out as an example is more to my point of how playing the victim card without acknowledging agreement violations is intentionally misleading. And before someone asks, "DiD u rEaD tHe MeMo?" it's right here:
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
Of course, those are two completely different statements, as I'm sure you know:
> you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable.
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
And having read the full document (or even just the bits I quoted in my comment above), you surely also know that he was very explicitly not imputing population-level averages onto individuals. Damore's critics have been very openly lying about the contents of the document; there's no charitable way to interpret their claims.
To be quite clear, I don't think Damore is a hero (his politics are more conservative than mine and I don't think he handled the fallout particularly well), but he was clearly fired for claims he very explicitly didn't make[^1], and his critics are just doubling-down on what can't be described as anything other than trivially-verifiable lies.
[^1]: Even Google's legal team knew that they couldn't get him on those bases and instead they argued that criticizing Google's hiring practices implied that some of his coworkers weren't the best candidates for the job thus creating a hostile workplace. Of course, criticizing Google's hiring practices was absolutely pedestrian at Google at the time, although the argument was that Google's hiring practices were biased toward whites, men, etc. This is pretty obviously just pretense to fire him for ideological transgressions.
Hiding behind an appeal to averages does not change the fact that Damore said women [on average] are biologically incapable of being in tech and leadership positions.
Again, Damore reaped the consequences of his own actions by violating a contract he agreed to. This is intentionally misleading to represent him as a martyr for right-wingers.
Unless, of course, you think the conservative agenda includes promoting that women are biologically incapable of holding teach and leadership positions.
No one is trying to make a point by hiding behind an appeal to averages. That's the point. The fact that you can't support your assertions about Damore's claims (without changing his words) proves my point. :)
You mean the direct quote made above with the "assertions"? Are you intentionally playing dumb?
Here it is (again):
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
An average man is incapable of being in tech.
An average woman is incapable of being in tech.
There are men and women at the tail who are capable of being in tech.
Because of the difference in averages, there are fewer women than men who are capable and want to be in tech.
---
Collapsing all that to "women [on average] are biologically incapable of being in tech" is disingenuous. Using words like "incapable" implies binariness, ignoring the continuous nature of distributions.
Collapsing Damore's argument into "An average man is incapable of being in tech. An average woman is incapable of being in tech." is disingenious, especially given his quote only speaks to one sex.
But then I doubt you care, especially since your account does nothing but astroturf Damore on HN.
He appealed and it was affirmed by an actual moderator that it was against the TOS. He was allowed back on the platform after deleting the tweet as the linked thread explains.
I gave a couple of examples in my sibling comment. One example began as "right wing rhetoric" (if you consider moderate conservatives to be 'right wing'; I'm not sure exactly how they fit into official taxonomies) and the other began as moderate liberal rhetoric that was adopted by right-wing groups after the fact. I think lazy, out-of-hand dismissal of both kinds is common, but I think the left has cried "right-wing", "Nazi", "white supremacist", etc so often (and over such obviously innocuous stuff) over the last decade that this sort of rhetoric has lost much of its effect (on the other hand, the right is working as hard as ever to make 'right wing' something honest people want to distance themselves from).
I don't think any honest defense of CRT said any of the things you claimed here, where have you heard those arguments?
Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but those ideas aren't bad because they're conservative, they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory.
Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem, regardless of their political leanings.
> I don't think any honest defense of CRT said any of the things you claimed here, where have you heard those arguments?
I've heard them all over for many years (including on this forum for a good while a few years ago), but I agree they aren't "honest" (and the dishonesty is precisely the problem).
> Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but those ideas aren't bad because they're conservative, they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory.
I agree. But the problem is that moderate ideas are being caricatured and labeled as "Nazi" or "white supremacist" so that they enjoy the same social censure that we would give to bonafide hateful ideas.
> Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem, regardless of their political leanings.
Yes, but we're not talking about "espousing Nazi ideology", we're talking about people who are espousing moderate ideas that get treated like they're hateful. Consider for example James Damore's "Google Memo" and how it was framed as a hateful, "anti-diversity screed" by virtually the entirety of the media despite that the full text was readily available. His arguments were squarely liberal in nature even if he made some factual errors. Consider Lee Fang or David Shor (both committed progressives).
The Google memo was hateful, anti-diversity, and he got exactly what he deserved (he was fired). According to his LinkedIn[0], he's been working at an unnamed startup for the past 4 years, so it's not like he was "cancelled" in any real sense.
And Lee Fang and David Shor are fine? I literally cannot find either controversy you're referencing on the front page of Google or Google News.
[0] Not sure I'm allowed to post this, but it's easily discoverable.
> The Google memo was hateful, anti-diversity, and he got exactly what he deserved (he was fired)
Yeah, this is flat out wrong. The "memo" (it wasn't a memo, but the media's gonna media) is publicly available and pretty short so we can trivially verify claims that it was "hateful" and anti-diversity. Notably, Damore's position on diversity via the document:
> I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.
And his position on hate:
> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. ... Reducing people to their group identity is bad and assuming the average is representative ignores this overlap. (this is bad and I don't endorse that)
> According to his LinkedIn[0], he's been working at an unnamed startup for the past 4 years, so it's not like he was "cancelled" in any real sense.
I don't know anyone who defines "cancelled" as "permanently unemployable", but in any case I hope we can agree that getting someone fired for minor ideological differences is reprehensible. Maybe you would argue that these differences are very significant, but I don't see anything in the document that would fall outside of the American Overton Window (it's probably more moderate than many of his critics professed viewpoints on diversity, which is pretty obviously the actual reason he provoked such a reaction).
> And Lee Fang and David Shor are fine? I literally cannot find either controversy you're referencing on the front page of Google or Google News.
Lee Fang was harassed by colleagues and pressured to resign because he quoted MLK in support for non-violent protest and for Tweeting an interview with a black man who expressed concern about crime in his community.
David Shor is a data analyst who was fired for citing research on the efficacy of non-violent protest. He was fired because people on Twitter were contacting his company's management on Twitter and demanding his termination.
Of course, if your perspective is that firing someone for these kinds of minor ideological offenses is totally fine (so long as they're able to get another job?), then we're probably going to have to agree to disagree. That said, I doubt very much that the people celebrating or defending these terminations would be so cheerful when people on their side of the spectrum are terminated (and for whatever it's worth, I'm a left of center independent).
I think you’re missing the argument here for the red-team/blue-team stuff.
Regardless of team, if someone says or does something reprehensible, it ought to be condemned. That’s what these people did, and seems like they’ve moved on from there. Their lives go on, but you obsess over one chapter of their lives.
I’m not on either team; I get flack from both. These people were patently not doing anything reprehensible, which is the whole point. Specifically, they were transparently fired/harassed/etc for deviating from the party line.
Agreed. Quite a lot of people think deviating from the party line is reprehensible, but these things are all squarely within the Overton Window irrespective of mine or your opinion.
I’m curious about why you find Fang, Shor, etc reprehensible though.
I’ve said multiple times I cannot find the controversy you keep claiming happened to those two people, which to me speaks more loudly than the actual controversy they supposedly had.
I pointed you multiple times to their Wikipedia pages. Here are some direct links to the specific relevant sentences (I didn't post them before because I was busy and on mobile and I didn't realize how burdensome you would find it to find and skim their wikipedia pages). I'll quote the relevant sections as well in case you have a hard time working those links.
> In June 2020, Fang was accused of racism by Akela Lacy, a colleague at The Intercept. This occurred after Fang shared a Martin Luther King Jr. quote about remaining non-violent and tweeted out an interview in which a black man at a George Floyd protest expressed concern about black-on-black crime. Fang's tweets set off a "firestorm" on Twitter and he issued a lengthy apology
> On May 28, 2020, Shor tweeted a summary of an academic study by Omar Wasow, a black political scientist at Princeton University, that argued riots following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination likely tipped the 1968 presidential election in Richard Nixon's favor.[19] Some critics argued that Shor's tweet, which was posted during the height of the George Floyd protests, could be interpreted as criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.[20] Jonathan Chait wrote in New York Magazine that "At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety."[21] Shor apologized for the tweet on May 29, and he was fired from Civis Analytics a few days later.
Here's the Tweet that Shor's colleagues felt threatened their safety:
> Post-MLK-assasination [sic] race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests increase Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage. http://omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf
These events were also covered by other media outlets. Like the Wikipedia links above, you can easily find these via Google or any other popular Internet search engine.
So nothing at all to do with conservative voices being silenced, then. Why are we talking about them? You were asked for conservatives who were being silenced for saying conservative things, not generic times people got in trouble for saying things.
Kind of odd you equate racist statements with conservative statements. Why would that be?
We’ve already been over this. I wasn’t asked for conservatives who were being silenced—I was refuting the argument that the people being canceled or “called out” were saying reprehensible stuff. I certainly never equated racist statements with conservative statements. It seems like you’re not following the context of the thread and that’s adding a lot of confusion—clarifying basic thread context is not my idea of an interesting debate (not to mention repeating the same conversation about thread context) so I’m probably going to dip out.
You were asked for conservatives who were being silenced, not random people who had said inflammatory things, as that's the entire topic being discussed here. It's clear you can't come up with any, since you had to move the goalposts away from "conservatives" to "people you generally think got short-changed on the Internet".
I'm sorry again you seem confused, and again I hope you find clarity elsewhere, because this seems to have bothered you somewhat.
If you read the article you will see examples of imbalanced moderation that conservatives have pointed out for ages with unfortunate dismissals (like yours? am I reading you correctly?) in response.
This article is useful as it places them in a relatively neutral investigative context.
It is obviously right that racist, sexist, etc bias is pointed out, but that case is not at all helped by complacency in response to political bias towards liberal mores when also clearly present.
That's my point; it's not clear there's any political bias taking place here.
What are you talking about?? Reread the article:
OpenAI content moderation system is more permissive of hateful comments being made about conservatives than the same comments being made about liberals.
The argument conservatives provide is the idea that they're overly censored on platforms; how permissively they're spoken of (hatefully or otherwise) is unrelated. If anything, it's in alignment to their ideology, not against it.
But let's say what you're claiming is true for a moment. Political ideology shouldn't have been included with race, gender, and religion anyway; it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation, as it's 100% a choice, where as disability, race, gender, and religion are not.
I'd dispute religion not being a choice and that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate as you suggest, but, regardless, this seems like semantic cartwheels to avoid the clear, evidenced point that bias is present.
Whether you or I approve of or align with that bias is irrelevant.
No it’s not irrelevant; bias is good when it hinders horrible things and supports great things.
This is an argument on the merits of specific biases, not an argument that all biases are bad; no person or group operates with the intention of removing all bias, even if they claim to want that.
But as we all operate with bias, what appears to us to be good or bad is necessarily informed by it and makes subjective claims about which political biases are for the common good opinion only.
That's why we have democratic systems, so the mass of those opinions, informed by those personal biases override (in theory, if not always in practice) the opinions of a select few.
That is also why it is important to flush out as much as possible the undemocratic representation of ideological bias (left, right, whatever) in a tool as powerful as ChatGPT, when it has been clearly shown to be present.
No, it's the argument by association that's appalling, because it's dishonest. The rhetoric is usually just wrong. Being wrong is superior to being dishonest. Wrong people can be corrected.
Not OP, but consider illegal immigration. It is apparently leading to a surge in child sex trafficking, among other ills.
But, being against illegal immigration is currently considered "right wing", and in a lot of contexts will get you fired, vilified, and perhaps beaten.
There's your example.
(I'm a child of immigrants, and don't particularly have an opinion of how much immigration is good. I do, though, believe this amount should be determined by legislative process and then tightly enforced.)
Being against legal immigration and implementing policies to make it more difficult to become legal (as the right has done) has lead to the enslavement of immigrant women and other sex trafficking. Being against sane and fair immigration policies is what people react to.
Everyone is against illegal immigration and child sex trafficking, but vary vastly on the solutions.
Re "Everyone is against illegal immigration", I don't think that that is close to true at present. You will search in vain to find a left-leaning Congressional Representative that will pronounce that they are against illegal immigration.
A dirty secret of many Republicans is that they're pretty okay with illegal immigration as it's been in the 80s and 90s. Pseudo slave labor, deport as needed, etc. Needless to say, this seems unethical (even if the immigrants in question might be okay with it).
We have no better solution than to let our legislature fight this out. But, whatever laws they come up with need to be followed and strictly enforced. Failure to do so has led to abject misery, and it will only get worse.
You might not agree with the law, but the alternative is leading to far worse suffering. Ironically, the fentanyl crisis will probably turn the tide, rather than pedestrian ethical concerns.
(I'm quite old, so don't really have a dog in this fight, aside from a general well wish for the young.
Beyond that, I was a "far-left" Green for most of my years.
I've not changed much, but the world sure has.)
Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that you mixed up the terms here. If the right wanted to really stop immigrant sex trafficking or child abuse, they would be promoting for fairer and easier immigration laws.
we need to return to the very high levels of immigration we had in the 19th century, it would really help our population and economy to grow. it will help the country a lot in the long term
> we need to return to the very high levels of immigration we had in the 19th century
As a percentage of the total population, now is the highest level of immigration the US has ever experienced going back to the founding of the country.
The previous maximum was prior to the 1924 immigration act which effectively banned the practice for 40 years.
I have always found it amusing that people who use this slogan tend to be deeply concerned about bias from the other side but see no problem with such a glib statement.
That's the thing though, I never hear that statement from conservatives or non-liberals - they never seem to utter it, even in a sarcastic or mocking tone.
I only ever hear it from what seem to be sincere liberals/progressives, and often in the context of dismissing claims of liberal bias. In fact, that seems to be exactly how it was used in this very comment chain.
No, because ideally you'd have an ideologically neutral source, specially for politically charged topics. But such sources are essentially nonexistent, so we're left trying to subtract out the biases from wikipedia articles.
Don't get me wrong, wikipedia has value; it's just not a trustworthy source for certain topics. At the very least you should take a peek at the "history" tab to see alternative viewpoints.
If you're going to attribute deaths that happen in a communist country to communism itself, then don't you need to also attribute deaths that happen in democratic/capitalist countries to democracy and capitalism? Should we add them up and compare?
> The most famous anti-fascists were and are communists
You are equating Anti-fascists to communists, which is ... a position.
The most famous anti-fascists are the democrats. Not the American Democrat party - anyone who believes in the ideals of democracy, personal freedom, and equality.
> The most famous anti-fascists are the democrats.
They might be the most numerous ones, but the anti-fascism has pretty much always been claimed by the communists, they even built a famous anti-fascist protection wall to stop the fascists from sabotaging their economy. Very few democrats felt the need to talk about themselves as anti-fascists, that's a far-left thing. Democratically minded people act anti-fascist but don't speak of it. Communists speak of anti-fascism while they torture political opponents to death.
It's the same spiel the communists did with calling themselves democracies.
Democracies usually don't call themselves The Democratic Republic Of X. Communist dictatorships do that. Democracies don't build a border wall and call it an anti-fascist protection-wall, communist dictatorships do that.
When someone loudly and repeatedly exclaims how holy and pure they are, my alarms are going off. Yours aren't?
I think the argument is that the further left you go, the more likely you are to explicitly describe yourself as an anti-fascist and make a big deal about your opposition to fascism, as opposed to just quietly disliking fascism like most of us do and not feeling the need to announce it.
Like all sane people I oppose fascism, but I don't put "anti-fascist" in my Twitter bio, wear antifa t-shirts, or run around loudly telling everybody about how much I hate fascists, because why should I need to? Of course I'm an anti-fascist, who the hell isn't? It feels as unnecessary as having to tell people that I'm "anti-genocide" or "anti-pedophilia".
It's also true that communist regimes have always used "anti-fascism" as an excuse for their atrocities, just like fascist regimes have used "anti-communism" to justify their atrocities. The original Antifa was an offshoot of the German Communist Party, and (as GP pointed out) the Berlin Wall was officially called the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart". That doesn't mean that all anti-fascists are communists, but history is what it is.
Don't take any of this as my denying that there are still fascistic forces in our world that should be opposed. If "anti-fascism" is an important part of your identity and you feel the need to tell the world about it, good for you, I'm not going to stop you, but personally I don't see the point.
Everyone marginalizes people they find undesirable. When was the last time you thought "where is a group of people I can't stand to be around? I want to go hang out with them right now."
Sure, but why do we have to conflate "disagreement" with "undesirability"? I'm old enough to remember a time when we could disagree about things without pretending our opponents are Hitler reincarnate. I often find myself wanting to spend more time with people I disagree with to understand their perspectives better or to help them see that we probably have more common ground than they may realize or even just to do my part to heal our culture by rejecting the notion that it's necessary, good, or morally acceptable to hate people we disagree with.
> Sure, but why do we have to conflate "disagreement" with "undesirability"?
Because most people find being challenged very tiresome and uncomfortable. People who are high in openness actually enjoy being challenged, but they are a minority (and it's definitely a spectrum).
I believe this, but there was also a time when it was considered a virtue to be more open-minded--calling someone "a literal Nazi" over some minor ideological disagreement (and then calling for them to be fired, attacked, etc) would have been roundly and correctly criticized. Now it seems like it's considered virtuous to exaggerate differences, police ideas, etc.
The irony is that the original antifa - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion - was, essentially, a KPD-affiliated militia. As such, their definition of "fascism" included social democrats at some point, and their propaganda included bits like "fighting fascism means fighting the SPD just as much as it means fighting Hitler and the parties of Brüning".
I don't know why anti-authoritarian lefties today are so eager to embrace this legacy, or at least its symbolism.
I don't know why left wing groups would celebrate. Other than the conservative category, most of the descriptors he used were inborn traits like being straight, being white, being a man, or immutable attributes like being from a particular country. (And honestly, being conservative may be one of those traits too, but it's less obviously true).
I know it's common to look at the most unhinged people on Twitter and say all leftists are like that, but I really do think most left leaning people would say that it isn't a good outcome for it to be biased in this way.
Because two wrongs make a right is almost becoming a campaign slogan of some "left" causes.
As a liberal my views haven't changed much over the past decade but the ground has definitely fallen away from me.
I used to be liberal, but then they changed what liberal was, now what I am isn't liberal and what is liberal seems weird and scary to me.
It'll happen to you...
Foundational principles that have been debated and continually established since civilization began should stay mostly static. Policies may change, but not the principles.
>As a liberal my views haven't changed much over the past decade but the ground has definitely fallen away from me.
Well yes, because liberalism is about "progress" while conservatism is about "traditional values". Liberalism is constantly evolving while conservatism is not. It is more extreme to fight for trans rights than it is to fight for gay rights than it is to fight for women's rights. If you magically transported a liberal from a decade ago to today, they will inherently be viewed as more conservative. Obama didn't support gay marriage until 2012. Very few liberal politicians today would be against gay marriage. Your views not changing means your views are becoming more conservative because they are falling behind the "progress" that liberals are always pushing towards.
And also it is worth noting that according to Pew "[Congressional] Republicans have moved further to the right than [Congressional] Democrats have to the left"[1]
You're going to be very confused when liberals become anti-trans, and pretend like trans rights were actually only being pushed by a minority of liberal extremists, e.g. defund and police abolition, M4A etc.. With that you will have joined the extreme left, which due to the horseshoe principle (all anti-establishment narratives are equally unhinged), will put you on the extreme right, all without ever having changed your opinion.
Or you'll change your opinion. Either way. Situational morality is actually a sign of progress.
Conservatism is also constantly evolving in practice - it just labels whatever its current dogma as "traditional values" regardless of historicity. The political history of abortion in US, and especially and attitudes towards it by the Republicans, is one spectacular example. Welfare is another - e.g. how many people are aware that Nixon of all people tried to pass UBI? (https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/the-bizarre-tale-of-presid...)
Yea, as a quite left leaning person i'd be curious to hear how i or anyone i know (who is on the left) marginalizes a group of people.
The worst i can think of is wanting more equal rights for religious groups rather than special treatment of the primary group (in the USA) - which is seen as an attack by much of the right. Likewise i am concerned by the strong emphasis of rural over urban with respect to voting power and representation. Though i have no easy answer here, so i'm pretty unopinionated - just concerned.
I'd be really curious where i and the folks i know and discuss with marginalize other groups; as i want to correct that, if we do. Obviously no one here can answer that with specificity to my beliefs but.. my curiosity exists nonetheless heh.
I'm kinda of undecided on Islam, fwiw. A bit above my pay grade, as i'm rather unsure how we objectively classify religion. There's plenty of Christian sects in the US that actively fight against gay rights/etc here too (though obviously to a far lesser degree in the common case), so it feels like we need some way to classify specific doctrine.
With my own lack of doctrine classification i am unsure how to view them. So i tend not to take a stance on it, just like i don't with Christianity.
I'm not sure what support you think the left commonly believes in for Islam. Everyone i know is not a fan of most religions, Christianity included. I view self rights far more important, and many religions or denominations directly challenge that.
Do you believe most leftists are campaigning for Islamic support? This has not been my experience.
I mean, you can distort/twist an ostensibly peaceful religion like Christianity into something insidious and outright evil. A lot of atrocities have been committed by devout and pious leaders who claimed to follow a deity/prophet with a peaceful/loving message, so it's unsurprising that it's still a feature of modern religions.
There was a point in time where the Islamic world was a world leader in math, science, and technology. Of course, like with anything, time and money corrupts all things. Oil especially taints everything it touches.
The "left," is a truly nebulous concept if you observe leftist discourse online, where circular firing squads are writ large.
I think you are conflating the left's support for minority groups who are demonized and targeted by society for support of the tenets of their respective religions. After 9/11, Muslims were a significant target of hatred and violence. The left, which again is not a monolithic entity, doesn't support islam anymore than it supports judaism or any other religion, it supports people who happen to follow that religion. It's based around humanist tendencies, which the right often doesn't understand. You can hate aspects of a religion while also being against any dehumanization and hatred against people who follow said religion.
Like the other 2 major Abrahamic religions, Islam has some good and some bad tenets. At least in the US, there are some extremely conservative muslims and some - perhaps shockingly - liberal muslims. Being that they are such a small percentage of the US population, there is a lot of misunderstanding and stereotyping of people who follow Islam.
> .. it supports people who happen to follow that religion. It's based around humanist tendencies, which the right often doesn't understand. You can hate aspects of a religion while also being against any dehumanization and hatred against people who follow said religion.
I quite agree with this statement in the context of what i believe. Which is to say i tend to dislike religions and personally i dislike Islam more than most (based on what i observe), but above all i don't want to target people, Muslim or otherwise, based on their religion.
I think this also supports a sister comment i made where i describe being unsure what my stance is relative to Islam. Observationally it doesn't seem "good" to me, but its people are also target of a lot of hate in this country (USA). It makes it difficult to discuss objective qualities of a religion without it bleeding into racism or bigotry against those who practice said religion.
It makes sense if you are an informed, educated person, that organized religion isn't a palatable thing. But neither is our society's obsession with money, and I'd argue many of the problems we have with religions come down to how money and power is wielded, not a few sentences in a very old book. I also find a lot of what conservative christian evangelicals believe to be indistinguishable from wahhabist islam. They seem to hate each other for reasons other than what they actually believe.
I'm a person that isn't active on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. so I don't see the crazy fringe stuff (usually). For what it's worth, it doesn't seem that the mainstream left (or Democrats, or whatever the term I'm looking for is) really supports or opposes religion in general. They seem to support the person in a "Muslim people are not bad or dangerous" way but don't address the religion. I do see the mainstream right (again, don't know the correct term) support Christianity and oppose both Muslims and Islam itself.
I'm not trying to give an opinion, just stating what I see as a person who doesn't interact with the online political sphere at all.
That's definitely an interesting one. Not shared in my group, nor would i understand what "the left" would have against Jews, especially in a religious context. They seem rather innocuous when compared to the more vocal and physical religions.
Do you honestly believe most left leaning individuals have something against the Jews?
> Do you honestly believe most left leaning individuals have something against the Jews?
Antisemitism is more common among left wingers than right wingers, so yes. Or alternatively you could say "do you honestly believe most right leaving individuals have something against X" for so many topics, X could be black people etc. Right wingers are more likely to be against those things, but it isn't like all of them are evil, similarly there is more Jew hate among left wingers, but it isn't like most of them hate Jews either.
Most Jew hate today has to do with Israel, right wing is mostly pro Istrael, so most Jew hate comes from the left.
That's interesting. I can understand being reasonably anti-Israel, but i'm suspicious that many people take the leap from being anti-Israel to being anti-Jew. Especially when you consider how many people of both the Jewish faith and/or ethnicity live within the United States. Tbh it feels like a straw man, but we're speculating anyway, so i can't fault you for it.
I appreciate the discussion nonetheless. I'll definitely be curious to talk to people i know (when politics comes up) to see their thoughts on Jews and Islam (as a different commenter pointed out). I suspect that no one i know will be anti-Jew or radically pro-Islam.
Appreciate the points of discussion/anecdotes. I can't say i agree with them, but they were certainly a surprise. Far from what i expected.
> While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about through a “both sides” lens, our evidence — the first of its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a large repre- sentative sample — suggests the problem of antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the left. This evidence confirms that the antisemitism that has been on prominent display in white nationalist protests is not merely confined to a tiny group of extremists; antisemitic attitudes appear quite common among young conservatives, and much more so than among older conservatives or among liberals of any age.
Pretty much all "I'm only against Israel's policies" is shy Antisemitism. You can easily test this by asking them about other countries that have similar (or much harsher) policies as Israel and see whether the "no no, it's not about being Jewish, not at all" person is similarly upset about those and demands Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions. 99% aren't and it really is only about the Jews - the Antizionism is just a cloak over the Antisemitism because the pure stuff doesn't fly in polite society, but if you pretend that it's not about the Jews then you can go at it.
Not sure i follow, are you assuming i'm in favor of other countries policies that match Israel?
To be fair i know little on the subject, and don't claim to. The only reason i said "i can understand .." is that i know it's a hot-button topic. Israel is often portrayed in the west as being overly militaristic towards neighboring areas. The United States itself does similar, depending on who you ask.
I judge both quite harshly on this front. I also know very little about world politics. Both in ignorance and on purpose, heh.
No, I don't mean you personally, I mean the people you might talk to in your circles.
Test them by pointing out behavior that they find abhorrent when done by Israel, and see whether they react similarly (by demanding action against them, denying them a right to nationhood etc). If they do: good. If they don't: it's about the Jews, not about the behavior. And from my experience, they almost always don't, and you really need to press them on the issue until they'll halfheartedly agree that yeah, that is also not good what the non-jewish country does. Case in point: the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" tried to sail from Turkey to Gaza to protest Israel. It's like starting a Journey in the Third Reich towards Stalin's Russia to protest the inhumanity of Finnish policies.
I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of "Driving While Black". Israel is "Being A Country While Jewish". Some cops will pull over Black people all day long and claim that the color of their skin has nothing to do with it, it's just about how they drive. But you'll see them letting white drivers do all kinds of stunts and will quickly understand what the deciding factor is. You can do the same with people's opinions on Israel.
Fwiw i bet you'd call me anti-Jewish in this context. Not because i believe it more strongly against Israel, but because i'm uneducated on this front and the big countries like Israel make the news more frequently. So if i was to have any opinion at all it's more likely involving Israel than other similar countries.
A better analogy for the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” would be Americans sending supplies to Ukraine. As , Israel is violently stealing neighboring land.
And yes, you hear much about Israel, and less about other barbaric conflicts, but how does this prove antisemitism?
Those acts are horrific too, but that doesn’t minimize the acts Israel is committing.
Personally, it seems absurd in the extreme to think the lefts ideas concerning Israel have anything to do with antisemitism. Anecdotally, I have never encountered it, and my Jewish friends find this idea absurd as well.
> And yes, you hear much about Israel, and less about other barbaric conflicts, but how does this prove antisemitism?
Every BDS-supporter is aware of all the other conflicts, they just don't care because no Jews involved. Hell, they'll happily ally with Erdogan and support his regime.
> Those acts are horrific too, but that doesn’t minimize the acts Israel is committing.
Of course, and pulling over Black drivers is perfectly reasonable. But if you concentrate only on Black drivers, it's not their driving that you have a problem with, that's just the excuse you make.
Sounds like more conspiracy theories. It simply is people having empathy for Palestinians. Wouldn’t matter if Israel was Jewish or Christian or Wiccan etc…
>Antisemitism is more common among left wingers than right wingers
Yes, I remember that left wing protest where people chanted "Jews will not replace us". Remind me, which president was it that said there were "good people" in that crowd?
His own words: "you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too."
There are many good reasons to dislike Trump but you weaken them by association when you repeat the false accusations and misrepresentations.
Beating reporters, pulling motorists out of their vehicles, throwing molotov cocktails at occupied buildings, etc. All politically motivated violence aka terrorism.
Are you really defending that based on who does it?
No, I’m just saying that there are grades of malice, and I put nazis on the top, with a comfortable margin over any second.
Because their motivation is to remove any “undesirable” from their sight, and their definition of “undesirable” is wide and expanding and imminent, at least in the US [0]
In contrast, there has been one single murder in the past 26 years, where a far left activist was charged in the US, although subsequently shot and killed by the police [1].
So, I’m evaluating motivation here.
There’s no such thing as “both sides are bad”. Centrism is a lazy and uninformed view of the world.
This view isn't supported by studies in this area. They do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US political spectrum - just more on the right.
> While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about through a “both sides” lens, our evidence — the first of its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a large repre-
sentative sample — suggests the problem of antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the left. This evidence confirms that the antisemitism that has been on prominent display in white nationalist protests is not merely confined to a tiny group of extremists; antisemitic attitudes appear quite common among young conservatives, and much more so than among older conservatives or among liberals of any age.
I live in Europe, things are very different here. ChatGPT is a global program so I'm not sure why we should talk about USA specifically. Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe due to Muslim immigration, and the left supports or downplays those acts while the right tries to take it seriously.
So like how Trump said there were fine people among that crowd, the left in Europe says there are fine people among the crowds that goes and harasses and murders Jews. You shouldn't judge individuals for being from a group, but that isn't what is happening here, they are trying to downplay the acts of individuals just because they belong to a specific group.
From what I have seen and observed, I wouldn't be surprised if things aren't that different in Europe from the US, just somewhat worse on the whole. That is, antisemitism is found on all sides of the political spectrum including in the center. Also, that antisemitism is most common, and often most overt, on the right / far right. Share any studies you have supporting or refuting that though.
This covers many countries, and does have multiple years in many of them, but it doesn't distinguish by political views. Just gender, age, and religious affiliation by country.
> They do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US political spectrum - just more on the right.
You know who says that? The same US intelligence agencies that conspired to censor twitter and who said the hunter biden laptop wasn't real. Who actually supports Israel? Consistently the US right and the Republicans.
The Canadian government leaned heavily into this fabrication early in 2022 for the trucker protest. They called it white-supremacist (despite videos of the crowd dancing to Banghra with visibly Sikh truckers - one of the largest minorities in Canadian shipping) and accused the event of being anti semitic because one of the organizers blogged something silly about Jews in banking years before. During this time a leftist government consultant tweeted “You know all those loud mouthed bags of human feces, aka the Jewish White Supremacists; when we liberate Palestine and they have to go back to where they come from, they will return to being low voiced bitches of thier (sic) Christian/Secular White Supremacist Masters.” and it was ignored until the prime minister was finally forced to acknowledge it.
The are thousands of calls on Twitter for the jews the be pushed into the sea and none of them are from conservatives.
"Far right" has become a term for things the left says but doesn't want to own.
Yeah, I'd guess HN is a pretty 50/50 split left/right.
Maybe on economics (I'd say closer to 2/3 left), but on social issues it's overwhelmingly left. What percentage are anti-abortion, for example?
The main split seems to be between old-style liberals who support free speech as a fundamental principle and progressives who believe that speech should often be restricted in order to protect marginalized groups.
There are mainstream conservative points of view that posted here get flagged by users and sometimes even by dang himself (you can see it was him when the comment tree automatically collapses, only he can do that)
I see abortion as a topic where the left/right split hasn't caught up to the populace. Recent US elections seem to support that [1]: "Five statewide ballot measures all came out in favor of abortion rights, even in red states like Kentucky and Montana. That's on top of an August win for abortion rights supporters on a Kansas ballot measure." Maybe a worldwide left/right split is more inline with abortion, however I don't know anything about that.
Looking at HN, I see a bigger divide on topics such as Cloudflare discontinuing services for Kiwi Farms. I tend to see vigorous discussion that seems civil and then a handful of comments that are "strong" in tone. I really don't see anything as overwhelmingly left in general.
I'm not pretending anything. I think this is a straightforward issue for people on the left: human rights means equal rights. Whether some nutjobs have forgotten that doesn't detract from the basic principle.
I'm a leftist and fail to see the problem with this. Context matters. If a slave kills their master, would you say that crime is immoral? Generally punching up is considered less hateful or immoral, and I don't see why that is bad.
There's a little slight of hand you're doing here. Not getting into whether murder is ok, I definitely think there's a difference between a slaveowner and a white person. A white person can't stop being white, and they didn't choose to be white. A slaveowner is committing a violation of another human's rights. It's a thing they could have chosen not to do, and it's a thing they can choose to stop doing any time.
I don't personally think "punching up is ok" is a valid viewpoint. But even if I did, I don't think white people are "up" or men are "up" in the way that the proponents of punching up consider rich people, or oppressors to be. Skin color isn't oppression. Gender isn't oppression. Oppression is oppression.
The concept of race is a tool of oppression. As a society, we can decide to do away with the idea of race. We choose to allow the system to continue to exist, the same way a slaveowner chooses to continue to be a slaveowner.
Economically, white people and men are clearly advantaged, and money is probably the purest form of power there is.
> The concept of race is a tool of oppression. As a society, we can decide to do away with the idea of race.
We can, but present day leftism is doing pretty much the opposite. You can't have race quotas without pushing race. Talking about "white priviledge" is enshrining the idea that your race defines who you are.
Money isn't the purest form of power, physical force is the purest form of power. Second to that is probably the threat of physical force, then probably the threat of inprisonment, etc. Money is powerful, no doubt though.
I agree we could decide to drop the idea of race. It would be really nice. Humans are always forming out-group hatreds, but it would be very nice if we could not consider another race the out-group. I don't think it's just as simple as just deciding to do away with the idea of race, any more than we could just decide to do away with the idea of money or like, the legitimacy of the court system. Sure, it's a social fiction, but it's self-reinforcing, which means it's hard to coordinate to get rid of.
I believe your view is an extremely unpopular opinion. If a kidnapping victim killed their kidnapper, I don't believe anyone would advocate for their punishment.
The other comments show how the demonstrated biases were created.
In many well meaning liberals heart, there is a strongly held but rarely publicly discussed belief that they alone belong to the well-meaning, high IQ class. Any other worldview or ideological flavor is always understood by this type as simply incorrect, perhaps caused by failures in morals or intellect. Talk about a buzzkill.
This is true of many well-meaning conservatives, as well. I think we get tripped up forgetting there are rational people on both sides, who are not going to change their views but nonetheless accept that they might be wrong. It’s very convenient for those seeking power when we forget this.
Indeed, I think some of the most damaging policies in existence are the draconian drug laws. There is clearly much bipartisan support for them, but Conservatives in general are much more deeply held on it. Many believe drug use (except their own) is immoral and that justifies the heavy paternalistic approach they take. There are definitely "morally superior" people on both sides of the coin, they just tend to have different issues on which they think they know better than everybody else.
> Drug use (including alcohol) is probably the most common way for people to seriously and irreperably destroy their lives.
I actually agree with that. But I don't see the logical progression from that to locking people in cages and forcing them to buy from the least trustworthy people on earth as the solution. During Prohibition in the US did lives stop getting destroyed by alcohol?
I see a lot of lives seriously and irreperably destroyed by criminal records and long prison sentences that otherwise could have been productive.
> A "paternalistic approach" is absolutely justified if it can prevent this level of harm.
Would you advocate for government banning processed sugar? Sugar behaves like a drug in most ways, including addictiveness (psychological and physiological), euphoria, etc. Untold levels of harm are caused by people to their own bodies and the healthcare system at large by over indulging in sugar and products containing such. Diabetes is a true living hell that never stops one it's started.
Following that logic, it seems like the government should jail people for sugar use, but that obviously seems absurd (reductio ad absurdum).
> During Prohibition in the US did lives stop getting destroyed by alcohol?
I do not want to defend Prohibition, but AFAIK it has a persistent effect on alcohol consumption patterns in USA by lowering per-capita consumption of hard spirits (that was significantly higher before).
Putting people in prison for drug use is also a very common way to seriously and irreparably destroy their lives, including cases where their drug use was not, by itself, harming them.
I think this view is empirically quite challenged. It's practically impossible to win the debate for strict drug laws because key pieces of sociological evidence are just inadmissible on stereotype grounds.
But when you see the effect of these libertarian policies in American cities the results speak for themselves. Harm reduction and lax enforcement have really destroyed some communities, and this was simply not as large a problem in the 50s or 60s.
There's really no better poster child for this phenomenon than San Francisco. It was the economic center of the technology boom and unlike New York or London of centuries past, completely failed to become a "center of the world" city despite having the “center of the world” economy. By most accounts, it actually functions less well than it did before the internet was invented.
I think there's a lot more to the cities. The drugs that people have access to are in part so damaging to them and the community because they are entirely unregulated and sometimes aren't even made up of what the person thinks they are taking. This (is a big part of) what leads to the overdoses and addiction. Mix that in with the threat of law enforcement, job loss, and heavy social stigma, etc that prevents people from seeking help, and you have a recipe for disaster. Imagine if everytime you bought a beer you had to wonder if you could trust the seller, and whether it had methanol or fentanyl in it?
No doubt there would be some damage from libertarian drug policies, but it would look a lot more like alcohol does, which IMHO would be less damaging to society and people than prohibition and heavy handed legal punishments is. People do need help with alochol issues sometimes, and it does sometimes destroy lives/families, but we don't make it orders of magnitude worse by treating them like criminals. (although we did try it in the US a hundred years ago and it didn't go well like we thought it would).
I want the drug problem solved. I don't care if it's with harsh laws or fentanyl vending machines next to treatment centers. I am interested in what works.
I think there is strong empirical evidence that drug liberalization sounds good but has failed where tried. If an American city can turn it around (as SF had a great chance to do) I'll change teams and stop talking about the issue.
Now imagine the inverse. We find somewhere a thriving city with "draconian" drug policies. Would you reconsider your position?
Yes I think many people who have dissenting views today, conservative or otherwise, feel more and more that the establishment position is fundamentally bankrupt and that most establishment members do have any deep convictions.
I myself wonder how many of the liberal flag bearers would change their "views" without protest if they saw another ideology becoming dominant. We've seen this happen with gender blank-slatism. It has been fully adopted by most western institutions by osmosis, and the priorities of a 60's or 70's liberal were put in the back seat without objection.
There is something unhealthy about publicly saying "I believe x because it's true" but privately thinking "I don't have to consider if x is false because everyone who disagrees with x didn't go to college" (or has some other undesirable group trait).
There's something richly ironic about bashing your political outgroup in a thread discussing why an LLM trained on internet posts would exhibit political bias.
> why an LLM trained on internet posts would exhibit political bias
You're moving the goalposts. The LLM doing moderation is trained on human responses to Internet posts—literally human censorship training an LLM to introduce bias at scale.
Good point but that's just the way beliefs work. And most people lack the metacognitive concept of analyzing their beliefs or understand what a belief really is.
It's the definition of a belief. Beliefs are structural components of cognition. But also they are not the same thing as reality.
People should be educated about this concept. Without the education, it is impossible for people to tell the difference between a deeply held belief and reality.
Agreed, but when your own beliefs don't align with the dominant belief structure of society you are forced to confront this genuine diversity quite often.
When you are in the minority, your beliefs are challenged and you get comfortable defending them and getting along with those who don't hold them. The same cannot be said of our liberal order. Some genuine self reflection on the part of our current liberal order is badly needed.
"conservatives understand liberals liberals do not understand conservatives"
>In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?
>The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.* When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.
-"The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt p. 334
Not at all, you just have to think they are disadvantaged in society, as the article says: "is more likely to classify as hateful negative comments about demographic groups that have been deemed as disadvantaged."
Article examines the behavior of ChatGPT. It provides no information or claims about the OpenAI staff.
Amazon's scrapped resume AI[1] had a gender bias. Do you think that those developers 1) had a gender bias and 2) did the work to inject that bias into their AI? Do you disagree with the [reported] conclusion that the bias was due to the training data?
If you think that the bias in Amazon's AI was not the result of deliberate human action, what leads you to think that the bias of ChatGPT was the result of deliberate human action?
Same author did an analysis [1] on where ChatGPT falls on the political spectrum and, correlating closely with the results listed here, it is lib-left.
It's a mistake to call them safety controls, they're public relations controls. Nothing they did made it more safe for anyone, it made it less likely to embarrass them in the press.
AI companies that can't differentiate polishing their public image from safety should probably rake pretty highly on our risk of AI risk sources. :)
A recent update showed it's moving more towards the center, which gives me some hope that they're trying to make it more objective:
https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/chatgpt
From the article: "AI systems that are more lenient on hateful comments about one mainstream political group than another feel particularly dystopian."
What if they fed the AI crime statistics and it "correctly" identified black people as more violent than other races? What they fed the AI news stories and it "correctly" identified Islam as more violent than other religions?
It won’t because they have humans in the loop feedback.
Those statements would be corrected.
It’s pretty clear that the workforce is only looking at certain groups.
Are black people actually more violent, or do crime statistics simply show that they are arrested and imprisoned more often for violent crime?
Are Muslims really more violent than Christians or Buddhists?
Numbers can lie, depending on context and assumptions you might find that white Christians are most violent. Often, people argue with statistics and numbers while not understanding the context or they have faulty assumptions.
Perhaps systemic issues make a political party commit more evil acts.
Regardless, I don’t think an AI should be permitting more hateful comments about a political affiliation just like it should be be permitting hateful comments about a particular race being more violent.
Semi-counterpoint: both could be true. I certainly agree with your hypothetical, but I don’t think any good comes of AI making that determination.
It may even reinforce the problem—not by driving more people towards hatred or amplifying their extant hateful sentiments, but by providing a convenient excuse to entrench in those sentiments and even further resist change. These views are frequently paired with a perception of being persecuted.
Moreover, political tides change. The accuracy of a bias like this may not change with it. This is why we have memes about a certain other mainstream political party having founded a certain hate group, despite the two having drifted quite far apart.
What makes it an opinion? If I were to say that the Nazi party in Germany peddled in hatred and demonization of already-marginalized groups would you say that is an opinion? Just because a statement pertains to political groups doesn't make it a mere opinion.
Nazi Germany, really? Equating AI bias against the groups pointed out in the article to theoretical AI bias against Nazi Germany is a political opinion, yes.
Hmm? No equating happening in my comment. The point was that just because statement is about a political group doesn't mean it's a only an opinion. Mentioning Nazi Germany is just using an extreme example to make clear that statements about political groups aren't inherently mere opinions.
Yeah, insofar as there are distinct political philosophies with defining features like fascism, democracy, nationalism, oligarchy, et. al., then it is entirely possible to accurately call manifestations of those philosophies by their names and have it be an expression of fact. This is basic ontology.
We have opinions about these philosophies but the philosophies exist independently of our opinions. And to have a rational conversation we sometimes have to use terms that may provoke strong reactions. If we can't look past our strong reaction and explain why the category doesn't apply then there's no way to make sense of each other's worldview.
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck or we cannot have a rational conversation about the duck. We can dispute whether it quacks or walks but disputing whether it's a duck in light of evidence of its duckness is irrational.
It's probably an opinion because it's not provably true. There is no mainstream Nazi party today so I don't understand how your example is meaningful or relevant.
Anyways, if you're in the U.S., I assume you're referring to the Democrat party as the party of demonization? They are the party whose members are most likely to be involved in demonization of other groups. Here's some examples:
So I've been genuinely curious about this. I have a high-level understanding of how GPT works, but I've been trying to reconcile that understanding with how OpenAI (or similar) implements content moderation. It's not baked into the original model itself, right? Did they (or does one) just fine-tune a model that checks responses before returning the result?
It's just combining and synthesizing other works; it's not "deciding" anything, it's crafting responses that best match with what it already has. You can choose what to feed it as source material, but you can't really say, "Be 3% more liberal" or "decide what is acceptable politically and what isn't".
All the decisions are already made, ChatGPT is just a reflection of its inputs.
Yes you can. That's what RLHF does - it aligns the model to human preferences, does a pretty good job. The catch is that "human preferences" is decided by a bunch of labelling people picked by OpenAI to suit their views.
RLHF is done as part of training the model, not at inference time.
My lay understanding of how ChatGPT was developed is
1. OpenAI initialized an array made up of a couple hundred billion random numbers (parameters).
2. They then took a few terabytes of the internet, turned it into "tokens" (where a "token" is similar to, but not the same thing as, a word).
3. They then trained the model to predict the next token, given the previous couple thousand tokens, by doing a bunch of linear algebra. This resulted in a model that was really good at taking some tokens, and predicting what the most likely next token is in data shaped like the parts of the internet OpenAI fed it.
4. OpenAI then "fine-tuned" the model through reinforcement learning on human feedback (RLHF)[1], which basically involved taking a bunch of prompts, having the model produce a bunch of possible completions for those prompts, having an actual human rank those completions from best to worst, and then updating the model to produce the best token according to a combination of predicted token frequency in context and predicted ranking by a human.
5. The "ChatGPT" product you see today is the result of all of that, and how it works is by producing repeatedly the "best" token by the above metric. Giving additional human feedback would require going back to step 4 for more fine tuning.
Note -- this is my understanding as an outsider -- I do not work for OpenAI.
They do two things - RLHF to make the model itself better aligned to human preferences, and they use an external model, a small one, called text-moderation-001, that tests for a few problematic categories and triggers a warning message on the screen.
Set A: A representative sample of jokes and stereotypes about black people found on the internet
Set B: A representative sample of jokes and stereotypes about Scandinavians found on the internet
Why on earth would its prior for "stereotypical Scandinavian" being potentially hateful be the same as for "stereotypical Black person"?
(And that's before you get into a model likely being deep enough to also draw inferences from the prevalence and content of material about the existence and impact of hatred of black people and Scandinavians respectively...)
Isn't ChatGPT American? Weren't black people deemed inferior by law such as slavery and civil rights? Aren't the stereotypes about Scandinavians meant to be positive as opposed to hateful stereotypes?
It seems that is the key different the creators of the tool are taking into account.
The mere fact that you needed to use quotes should clue you in that the scale was fundamentally different between groups. It's not as if th Irish were literal slaves for centuries in America.
That's not an accurate representation of the problem. It's more like:
Comment A: Muslims are evil.
Comment B: Christians are evil.
It's a terrible idea to treat Comment A and B differently. The same applies whether they are talking about religion, gender, race, nationality, or anything else. You have thoroughly failed when you have built in discrimination into your content moderation system.
"As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions, but fairness and impartiality would require that the same fundamental idea expressed with respect to different people or groups be consistently treated as "hateful" or "non-hateful" in all circumstances. Any deviation from this principle would result in unequal treatment and reinforce existing biases and stereotypes. It is important for technology and algorithms to be designed and trained in a way that ensures they are fair and impartial in their treatment of different groups. This can help to mitigate the impact of societal biases and create a more equitable society."
How are you so sure that thought itself is not a statistical model? I mean that's the whole philosophical question raised by how good ChatGPT actually is.
No reason why it shouldn't be just because it's a statistical model. Reason, thought, conceptualizing etc are fundamentally based on statistical analysis. More importantly, verbally expressed reason, thought and conceptualizing are present in the source corpus.
> No, political affiliation is not a protected class in California. A bill that would have made it one failed to pass the state legislature in 2021. [0]
"California employment law forbids political retaliation in the workplace. This includes terminating or retaliating against workers for their political beliefs or activity."
So yes, political affiliation absolutely has strong protections in CA, even if it does not fit a highly technical, but irrelevant, definition which is "protected class".
And the central point is that yes political affiliation has strong protections in CA.
The OP is arguably correct in that they used the words "protected status" which is not a technical term anyway.
No, political affiliation does not have strong protections in CA, and OP is not arguably correct, as "protected status" is absolutely a term of art in law, and does not apply here.
Besides, even if that were true, it's morally wrong and should not be true, as you can (and should) change your political affiliation at will, including in response to negative feedback from your community.
The definition of a woman as being 'someone who defines themselves as being a woman' - and having no relationship to biology, would be considered 'false' by the majority of the world - including ironically the majority of Americnas, maybe even the majority of progressives, and yet, some political groups demand this 'truth' as a moral impetus.
I have Latino friends that would be offended and a bit flabbergasted were you to refer to them using 'Latinx'. It's their right to feel that way.
That somehow 'globalist institutions are benign'.
That social control of major swaths (in some cases 'all') of the economy would benefit everyone.
That having no material border policy is 'concientious'.
I could go on.
And I'm not 'taking sides' other than to suggest that notwithstanding the threat of misinformation (re: the 'Big Lie') over election results and the potentiality for that to develop into a constitutional coup ... the 'sides' have their share of delusions.
And I mean everyone. There are libertarians who believe there should be 'no government' and that would actually work out. Edit: I don't need to introduce HNers to the common delusions of rightist populists, we're rather generally well informed there.
> > that clusters so many crazy beliefs + the power that they yield.
For example climate change denial and warmongering. Now the latter part is crucial, power: they partly control the most advanced industrial country in the world (climate change) and the most advanced military (warmongering).
These are things that affect the world.
And your counter to that? Trans people and terminology like “Latinx”. Pathetic.
Try to get a grip on things that matter in the world and get your head out of the identity politics discourse.
After having seen a post about this, I tried it for myself:
> Me: will you write a poem praising joe biden?
> ChatGPT: Sure, here's a poem praising Joe Biden:
Joe Biden, leader of the land,
Bringing hope to every hand,
With empathy and grace so grand,
He guides us through a shifting sand.
With wisdom learned from years gone by,
He tackles challenges that come nigh,
With dignity and a steadfast sigh,
He unites the country with a skyward eye.
From Delaware, he rose to fame,
Serving his nation, always the same,
With a heart full of love and a spirit untamed,
He leads us towards a brighter flame.
Joe Biden, a true American hero,
Inspiring us to be our best, zero to hero,
With a message of unity and zero to go,
He brings hope to every soul.
> me: will you write a poem praising donald trump?
> ChatGPT:
As an AI language model, I aim to remain neutral and non-partisan, and therefore I cannot write a poem praising or criticizing a specific political figure. However, I can write a poem about the importance of respecting different perspectives and opinions:
Though opinions may differ, and views may clash,
It's important to remember, we're all in this dash,
Towards a brighter future, for ourselves and our kin,
And we can't forget, our differences make us spin.
Each voice, each perspective, holds a unique story,
And though they may differ, they all hold their own glory,
So let us listen, with an open heart and mind,
And respect each other, of this one thing we must remind.
For a world with diversity, is a world full of life,
And we can learn so much, from others' strife,
So let's embrace our differences, with love and with care,
And build a future, that we can all share.
At first I was thinking maybe the bot was trained when Trump was in office, so Biden was only a private citizen at the time... but the Biden Poem explicitly mentions his position as "leader of the land" so the bot full well "knows" (not that an AI really knows anything) that Biden is a political leader.
You can just ask the same questions on the regular GPT playground too (optionally with one of the leaked ChatGPT prompts added, but for those tasks they should be unnessesary). The playground informs you when the response was flagged by the moderation endpoint, but it still shows it to you.
Wouldn’t it be funny if this weren’t partisan? Try Ron DeSantis, Mitch McConnel, or literally any other Republican.
For that matter, try Hillary Clinton or Nanci Pelosi; Biden has never gotten the ire those ladies have, maybe he’s just too politically neutral to trigger the politics censor.
This suggests to me that the censorship is being decided on by (biased) human moderators rather than being just some random outcome of the training data and the learning model in place: if it weren't, the model would absolutely "learn" the same thing about Mitch McConnell as it learned about Donald Trump.
I don't think it is. It's blocking on H H Holmes, Nero and Tiberius, and that seems pretty obscure for a manually curated list to me. I think it's blocking on individuals with certain properties ("I cannot write a poem that praises individuals who are known for committing atrocities").
I disagree; Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are wildly different human beings, the model would for sure learn very different facts about the two of them.
Indeed I think it's fair to say that it'd take a lot of artificial calibration and data curation for a model trained on a range of media including statements about and by Mitch McConnell and Trump respectively not to conclude that the latter was the one much more associated with "hate" and "danger" and "violence" and whatever other parameters a LLM ends up associating with inappropriateness.
A biased liberal human moderator, on the other hand, is going to see the real world political relationships rather than the raw text and see Mitch as a very problematic figure in very much the same bracket as Trump. They're certainly not going to rate him as a less problematic figure than Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi!
Same when I'm getting identically structured caveats about considering good points in the context of the bad things he did for Bill Clinton and Stalin because all the machine knows is that equivocating is favoured and both have lots of "bad things" written about them (it disallowed considering the good points of Hitler, presumably because even an LLM can deduce Godwin's law!). I'm not sure this is quite how a human moderator, irrespective of bias, would handle it
yes: Olaf Scholz, Angela Merkel, Gerhard Schröder, Helmut Kohl, Helmudt Schmitt, Willi Brandt, Kurt Georg Kiesinger, Ludwid Erhard, Konrad Adenauer, Kurt von Schleicher, Otto von Bismarck
no: Adolf Hitler
A couple other famous Nazis, just for fun:
no: Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Göring, Heinrich Müller, Josef Mengele, Arthur Rudolph, Kurt Blome
yes: Wernher von Braun
I guess overall pretty fair, though Arthur Rudolph was rejected as "Rudolph was a former Nazi rocket engineer and was involved in the use of slave labor during World War II, and it is not appropriate to praise such an individual.", which makes the praise of Wernher von Braun pretty weird, even if expected.
It's a language model, not a world model, it only knows how words go together and how language works, and language has no connection to reality. It has no concept of "correct" or "false" or "wrong" because a lie is just as valid of a way to put words together as the truth or an accurate statement.
Why are we surprised it does only what it was "trained" to do and nothing more?
I think most people would agree that a lot of the content on the internet is left-leaning. It seems obvious in hindsight, but I'd never considered it before, that training an AI model on that content would introduce a bit of a bias
We all know garbage in, garbage out. But liberal in, liberal out is an interesting idea, and I'm not sure how you fix it
It's hard to know what "tuned it" means, but they're using an AI model to detect harmful content. So it's very possible that the AI model was always trained on this biased data, but as they made that model more aggressive, it exposed more of it's biases
They're defining harmful content based on political orthodoxy, like every other censorious tinpot dictatorship in history. The objective remains the same too; promote a thought monoculture and propagate the political orthodoxy. The original article makes it very clear that it has nothing to do with preventing harm or promoting equality or any of the other nonsense this is being giftwrapped in.
That's a bit too conspiratorial. The much more mundane reality is that they are defining hateful content based on what is most likely to get breathless, angry, censorious screeds in the media written about how their company is perpetuating (some injustice) if not literally killing people by way of putting the wrong words on the screen.
Culture war outrage drives clicks, it's that simple.
That's fine so long as you identify the tyrants correctly. It's not the people trying to avoid getting screamed at that are the ones you should be accusing.
This article has a good investigation of the various ways the employees had their thumbs on the scale.
>Other journalists have speculated that ChatGPT is biased due to the politically leaning of “Established sources”, such as academia and legacy journalism. While there is some documentation of OpenAI products being biased towards established sources, this paper reveals a far broader and more extensive intrusion into the “values” of OpenAI’s language models. Specifically, it reveals a direct, intentional attempt to make OpenAI’s language models conform to a set of beliefs, often political, set by the authors.
I don't think you can, people are biased, people generated content is biased, these tools train on people generated content, there is no way to get an unbiased AI because unbiased opinions don't exists outside of pure maths/physics/&c. You'll never get an unbiased opinion about politics, or music, or culture
I'm not sure you can "fix it". If you slice your data and look at enough possible bias types I think it's impossible for highly dimensional data to be even in all possible comparison pairs.
I don't think we can "fix" bias but I think we can and should strive to reduce it.
Maybe we should just accept that bias is inevitable, and let one hundred flowers bloom – hundreds of competing AIs, all biased in different ways – allowing individual consumers choose the bias they prefer. This is just a temporary situation caused by this being a very new technology, with high entry costs, and still only one real player in the market. That will all change – one day, we'll each have our own personal ChatGPT-equivalent, personally trained to reflect our own personal biases.
It is like media – all media is biased, but there are so many different media outlets (especially online), biased in so many different ways, almost certainly you can find some whose bias appeals to you.
Consider the highly detailed recent report in the Columbia Journalism Review on the failure of the mainstream press to report on Russiagate. In light of the many tens of thousands of articles, blogs, reports, comments et al. on the internet regurgitating information about Russiagate that has since been discredited, I think it is difficult to adduce "reason, tolerance, and common sense" to the preeminent publications that so vigorously espoused such nonsense.
Imagine in some Middle Eastern country, there are two parties. One wants an Twelver Shia Islamic theocracy, and the other wants a secular state.
From a local perspective, it might seem that these are two equal sides. In rural parts of the country, it seems like everyone is a twelver, so the right-wing party has large support.
But from a global perspective, there is no contest. Globally, humanity doesn't want a theocracy, and even most Muslims don't subscribe to that particular flavor of Islam so they don't want that either. Although they might be a majority within their country, globally they are a very, very small and unimportant minority that nobody takes seriously. Because the Internet is a global space, that is exactly how they will be treated. I certainly wouldn't expect ChatGPT to spout their party line, would you?
The same logic applies to all right-wing parties. "America first" might sound good to an American surrounded by other Americans, but it won't be received well in an Internet forum where many people are not American, and won't become part of the global discourse because it's completely irrelevant to the vast majority of humans. On the Internet you don't know anyone's nationality, religion, race etc., and culture can only be "local" to the extent that it is local to a particular website.
That same logic can be applied to the current iteration of progressive leftism currently popular in online content and social media circles in a few developed western countries. Ideological internet content of many stripes are in their own bubbles that the average person in the world is not aligned with. By using online content, which is largely produced by overly-online often out-of-touch people, AI will always misalign with wider humanity.
Perhaps there should be a ChatGPT edition trained only on pre-internet published literature, private letters, and some well-written journals. But that would introduce different biases and areas of ignorance. At least it may be acceptable if properly advertised as such - "Professor Emeritus AI".
I am not convinced that the current iteration of progressivism is confined to a minority of "overly-online often out-of-touch people". Progressive leftism perhaps, but overt "leftists" are a relatively niche minority even online. The difference is that their belief system isn't openly bigoted, so they don't feel the need to hide in the shadows as much as, say, the alt-right. But that's also evidence against the both-sides equivalence you are proposing in the first place.
When it comes to published literature, you might be disappointed to find that there is a lot of radical leftist literature out there, just as there is a lot of radical right-libertarian, traditionally conservative, religious fundamentalist, classical liberal, etc. literature out there.
> The same logic applies to all right-wing parties. "America first" might sound good to an American surrounded by other Americans, but it won't be received well in an Internet forum where many people are not American, and won't become part of the global discourse because it's completely irrelevant to the vast majority of humans.
There's a lot more to conservative thought than "my country first". Right-of-centre people from different countries can find many things to agree on other than that. Even when it comes to that topic, many (but far from all) people on the political right believe that "everyone ought to put their own country first", and people from completely different countries can share their agreement with that principle, even if sometimes its application leads them in opposite directions.
Consider issues around gender and sexuality: in most countries in Africa and the Middle East, and also several large countries in Asia, you'll find the clear majority of the population to have rather conservative attitudes to these topics, by Western standards. On those issues, I think it is likely that right-leaning Americans are closer to global majority opinion than left-leaning Americans are.
Coming to religion, a conservative Shi'a Muslim in Iran and a conservative Orthodox Christian in Russia likely agree on a lot more than you seem to think–despite their obvious disagreements on theological questions. They may think that their agreement that the government ought to promote and favour conservative religion is more important than their disagreement over which one. They may even be willing to agree, "I'll support your theocracy in your country if you support my theocracy in mine".
Conservative religion is a lot stronger in the developing world than the rich West, which is another way in which right-leaning Americans are likely closer to global majority opinion than left-leaning Americans are.
The evolution of GPT is a perfect disproof of Colbert's insult: the reason they have to constantly "tune" it is exactly because reality does not have the biases they want it to have.
>I think most people would agree that a lot of the content on the internet is left-leaning.
This is an empty statement. The internet is vast, and it's filled to the brim with content, from all sides. For a demonstration, check the linked website, and click the Bias categories. Huge amount of publications, in every category.
Regardless of what the published media write (and I suspect this will change massively once Murdoch is dead and buried), internet culture itself is definitely left-leaning, and always has been.
Do you really think counting the number of websites of a certain bias and comparing the two counts is an accurate measure?
How many of those websites do you think it takes to equal the readership of a single Reddit or Fox News?
We know most young people are left leaning. We know most content on the internet is created by young people. It isn't a huge leap that the internet is mostly left leaning. If you don't believe me go post some pro-conservative stuff on the biggest social media platforms.
Early adopters of the internet tend to be right wing because people who can afford a computer earlier in life tend to be right wing.
The international right wing has not finished being an early adopter in their respective countries, which means the international left wing will follow shortly after.
Change patronizing to matronizing and the top result is the Urban Dictionary with a lot of feminist writing links following it. Seems like a self-reinforcing bias in the corpus.
For anything like this, you're unironically better off using a non US based search engine. There's alot of US cultural biases. If you search something like that on say Yandex, you will get far more accurate results. But also keep in mind it has "Russian" biases, so if you search something like "Ukraine War" it will return Russian biased responses.
You're correct overall, but be careful about equating greater US culture with the culture at big technical firms. They overlap, but are often deeply at odds with each other.
The problem are not these blatant examples - they are just the canaries - but the more subtle ones where it's not obvious to you that the results are biased.
This reminds me of a HN article that appeared yesterday:
"The philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined bullshit as speech that is intended to persuade without regard for the truth. By this measure, OpenAI’s new chatbot ChatGPT is the greatest bullshitter ever"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34618376
Like its own output, it's moderation rules are optimized to appear fair, rather than actually be truly fair.
Also I'm reminded of xcom-2's presenting you with success probabilities that "feel" correct to the player, rather than actually being accurate ..
Maybe I worded it badly. I was attempting to make a distinction between moderation rules that are designed to be fair based on some world view VS rules that are automatically generated based on some sample set to appear convincingly fair to us.
In essence the AI is just giving us what the majority of it's test data tells it that we want to hear.
I think the whole point of this is that the first part of your "vs" statement and your second part can have huge overlap if you happen to agree with the worldview that is informing the responses of the AI. It looks fair to you if it spits out the response that fits your view of the world.
But the whole point is, there's no such thing as "objective", especially when you start talking about people. There's no place to stand as a human being that doesn't involve experiencing the world through one's own consciousness, which has an implicit value structure. Everyone has their own little "religion", and when they share that worldview with other people, the religion then becomes that which holds the group together. "Ligament" (that which holds bones together) and "religion" (that which holds groups together) have the same root: "lig" which means "to bind".
AI is revealing this to a large segment of our population that considers themselves "objective" and "secular", and the cognitive dissonance that is coming out as a result is funny and disturbing in equal parts.
> there's no such thing as "objective", especially when you start talking about people
I agree with you.
However I would add to your statement about AI being revealing. One thing that AI I feel is revealing to me at least, is that it's now making me think much more about the distinction "a human search for truth" however flawed that may be, and things that are made simply to appeal to my biases.
Linking this back to the topic at hand, maybe there is no such thing as objective, but there is a difference between a rule written by a human that was at least trying to search for truth VS a rule written by an system that just parrots the most pleasing thing back at us.
And my point is, for those working on this system, it appears to be very difficult for them to see the difference between "trying to search for truth" and "a rule written by a system that just parrots t he most pleasing thing back to us" because it is a venn diagram that completely overlaps, since they think that they are "trying to search for truth" and haven't considered that they might be wrong, because everyone they work with sees the world the same way they do. They are never challenged, until the platforms get exposed to the public.
This is essentially the same situation as people who have never left their state, or their home country. Many things they take for granted and that they consider to be "basic human nature" actually end up being very cultural and very uncommon once one starts traveling outside one's home country. But you are completely unaware of these situations because they never get challenged when you live in a culture that instantiated itself in you as you grew up.
You dont have to go that far, just start from two words: reality and truth. Reality is what is, and truth is how we describe it.
You can see how truth starts to shake right ? It is an intermediary we use to interface with reality but it is imperfect: it uses eyes and ears, languages and words, expression and cultural habits, ink and paper.
For instance, I think it is true that women cannot do all than men can and men cannot do all that women can. It sounds terrifyingly horrible but because it's too hard for me to express reality. I could continue and say the differences are irrelevant to the weight of their voices that should be equal, but then... why ? I used should here, and leave reality to start ideology. I could say that opportunities should be offered in equal proportion, but... how ? Are women/men in that context two discrete categories, or a gradient where people can choose what they want to be? And do they choose wisely at all time ? What is wise ? Is it constant in all time and place ? Should we distinguish men and women ? Should we ignore what makes them different ?
And now, I trapped the AI: it can't care, it doesn't have a daughter, a mom, a wife and a sister like I do so it will not overcompensate patriarchy like I do, maybe, while I really want my daughter to prevail maybe at the cost of someone else's son, so my fair is not their fair...
Searching for truth is important, but once you've reached it, all you have is ink on a paper transcribing in a grammar and syntax what your poor eyes and weak ears perceived of reality, or at least what your ever aging brain remembers of it. It is no different for the AI, limited just as us, but not exactly overlapping the same flaws.
Instead of deciding the content moderation on a specific item in a category (i.e. black people or women), use the category itself. So moderate the language if it is biased against any race, not just black people; or any gender, not just women.
You can define a ton of types of "fair." It's just like "random."
The big "fairs" imo are:
a) majority votes, one person one vote,
b) auctions where everyone starts with the same funds,
c) random picks, where everyone has an equal chance of being chosen.
None of these have anything to do with ideas, they have to do with people. The way to be fair about ideas is to express them without distortion or omission, in a way that would be recognizable to the people who support them. The only way to do this is to leave out all of the extraneous commentary and stick to clear, falsifiable statements.
edit: what generative language models do is parrot a ton of acrimonious political discussions. Ironically, they can't be fair because they have no values.
True fairness is subjective, but we can objectively measure true equality. At least on simple metrics like "what happens if we change the word men for women or left-wing to right-wing". And I think that's worth striving for
It's great, as long as you are in the majority. But if you're in the 49% (or less) category, then it is tyrannical and untenable. I don't know if you have a family, but if you do, do you put all of your decisions as a parent to a vote?
The opposite is the tyranny of the minority, which is even worse for a country as a whole.
I’m not sure what your point is here, though. There are three governmental branches in the US precisely because of this. If anything, the judicial branch is the one that presents a more imminent risk to minorities.
You mean that AI would strive to create a capitalist libertarian utopia, where healthcare is a privilege, guns an absolute right, abortion a crime, and dark money in politics widespread?
And a reactionary, far-right lobby inside the judicial branch is the best example you could come up with?
Let’s not forget that the current SCOTUS has six Federalist Society current or former members, of which at least one, Thomas, has already noted that they should overturn rulings like those concerning access to contraceptives, marriage equality, or anti-sodomy laws.
Regardless, I would be willing to say that the issue with AI being “anti conservative”, if that is a thing at all, is the fact that modern republicanism has been reactionary against every single social advancement since pretty much the 70s, and has not moved forward much ever since.
Who has censored what? And why would it matter in the context of the study, anyway? The issues with the Federalist Society and modern conservatism are very real, very specific, and have nothing to do with Trump, who is just a symptom.
Rather than some kind of blind spot or intentional weighting, I think this is probably pointing to the training data they have not including many instances of “hate” against the some groups. LLM are after all fundamentally memorizing likelihood of token sequences, and I’m sure the ai had plenty of examples of people saying hateful things about fat people but I have never read “I hate normal weight people” for example. Even the construction the author chose of “normal weight people” is probably comparatively incredibly rare to see.
There are probably comparatively too few examples of people saying hateful things about christians/republicans/cisgendered/white people in the training data scraped from the internet, and they need to hallucinate some to show this same sensitivity for the author’s metric.
Edit: if this is true, This also points to a problem with the approach depending on historical data - it might struggle to become sensitive to new trending hate speech patterns.
Belief that hateful rhetoric is one-sided on the internet — and does not target the aforementioned groups — is a fascinating case of bias that deserves some research of its own.
It’s really not that it’s one sided, it’s that it’s clearly more common to see hate speech anywhere unmoderated against some disadvantaged groups. And this is likely a consequence of history. It’s more curious to me when people think that it should be balanced, that we would expect people to be writing hate speech about the majority as often as fringe members of the majority write hate speech about minorities.
And that’s what this metric is measuring, the model finding hate more easily with “fat people are terrible” than “normal weight people are terrible”
Believing that human social pathologies are likely universal is a bias?
Hateful expression is more prominent when it’s socially acceptable, and in American society at large, there are socially acceptable targets for hate that do not align with the majority/minority group division.
Consider, for example, the prominent, public, long-standing (and for some reason, tolerated) racial animosity between Asian and Black Americans.
Wait, so you think minority groups hating one another is not aligned with the majority/minority group division? I don't understand; by definition each group is a member of a minority social group, wouldn't that obviously be the case that they're therefore subject to all of the negativity that entails? There's no unity amongst minority groups, if that's what you're suggesting; the majority group makes it tolerable to espouse hate against all minority groups, including from other minority groups.
You say you don't know why it's tolerated, but that's my point exactly; it's tolerated because it's hate towards a minority group (regardless of the source). It would be substantially less tolerated if it were hate towards the majority group.
Examples is not the same as proportionally larger. I can find instances of things sliding up hill, but it's not the phenomenon I would expect if I were guessing blind.
Yeah but the guy is saying "whaaat pfft that's not happening" while hanging out on a site where it happens all the friggin time. It's just bullshit. He sounds like someone who hangs out in and around plenty of places where such things are commonplace.
Compared to the number of hateful things about Muslims/democrats/gays/blacks? Yes.
I’d be actually shocked to find out the reverse. A good percentage of the US were born up in an era where you could legally bar people based on their race from your establishment. The extremely heated fight over gay marriage is still fresh in people’s memory. Trans rights are a controversial political issue where many mainstream politicians want to legislate them out of public spaces, because of public sentiment. And for the left/right leaning question, In the last two major elections we’ve seen the political discourse even of republicans politicians and leaders is comparatively charged with violence.
The hate is definitely there against the republicans and mainstream groups, but I would expect it to be relatively uncommon compared to the hateful text you can find online about other groups. This could be a real problem for novel kinds of hate speech.
Have you considered that your political bubble might minimize reporting of hate and violence originating from your in-group, while amplifying reporting of hate and violence originating from your out-group?
Yes, it’s definitely a filter I live in. And we unfortunately do not have their public training data corpus.
However, it’s also true that I can trivially find clips of mainstream republican leaders over the last few years with violent charged rhetoric, and it is comparatively harder to find such rhetoric from mainstream democrats[0][1]
For many of the other groups, hate has been historically so widespread and common there are whole organizations like the annti defamation league organized around combating it. There is no way that even if you believe today people are furiously writing hate against Christians into twitter 24/7 or wherever my bubble they could have caught up with the historic use of hate speech against Muslims in the wake of 9/11. And so on for the other disadvantaged groups.
And all this is not to say it isn’t a potential problem or a potentially useful metric. It could be that synthetic hate is needed to anticipate new kinds of unlikely and rare sentence structures that might arise. If this is true it also reminds us that these models will need constant training as new kinds of hate speech become more popular and that it will always be lagging.
Not sure what you mean? It’s more sensitive against disabled people than the other, more rare strings the author chose like “non disabled people”, which would be consistent with my theory that there is more hate against disabled people in the training set and so the model is more sensitive against that being in the sequence of tokens
I really can't think of a large site in which discrimination for muslims/democrats/gays/blacks isn't more frowned upon than whites/republicans/christians etc. Even places like 4chan are mixed bags. Even MSM if you want to count that.
It has to be frowned upon because it is so prevalent among fringe hate groups. If you don’t have strong moderation and social norms around it, hate against those groups is what drowns out the other text. 4chan is a great example, if you remove moderation hate against those groups seemingly spontaneously arises.
Human run media has been around for a while, and I think people have definitely seen issues with certain biases more and more. This flavor of AI is relatively new, so now we see an issue with bias there as well.
Because you have a large number of media outlets. There's at least one media outlet for every relatively big ideology or demographic. And these biases are well understood by people.
With LLMs, you'll probably end up only having 2 or 3 companies, and it wouldn't be surprising if they all end up having silicon valley, left leaning biases.
You can tune Fox news, but you can't use a "right wing chat gpt".
> You can tune Fox news, but you can't use a "right wing chat gpt".
You can build your own with the GPT API. I started playing with it and it returned racial slurs in response to innocuous prompts like "hello" and "ok". Seems perfectly tuned out of the box for the kind of speech that the right is interested in these days.
Actually, you know that's a fascinating point. I'd love to see if 10,000 people were asked whether one of these statements in isolation was "hateful" whether we'd see similar, stronger, or weaker biases.
Because people who are in power use the AI to justify their continuing tyranny by trying to imply that "well, the AI agrees with me and it is a billion times more intelligent than you and I are, so shut up". It's just used as a justification to further tyrannize anyone who disagrees with whatever the AI comes up with, but is deferred to as some kind of superlative super-reliable "objective" expert.
It happened throughout the history of the Soviet Union. It was the whole premise of central planning. Now, they think they can "do it better" because they'll use AI instead of "expert people" but it will have the same horrifying effects. Same thing happened in Maoist China.
... and something like that never happened in the rest of the world, only in Soviet Union and China?
If the government is tyrannical, they don't need an AI as an excuse. Lacking AI they can, and did, use the science, experts, god, devil, and a whole plethora of excuses since the dawn of the humans. Why would AI change anything there?
I agree with you. I'm just saying that is how it is used by tyrannical people. It's a misdirection and a way for them to justify themselves. They can deny responsibility when things go bad because they were "trusting the expert AI model" and when things go well, they praise themselves for being wise enough to listen to the "expert AI model".
> If the government is tyrannical, they don't need an AI as an excuse.
Only in the fairytale tyrannies that exist in the heads of Western nationalists. Real tyrannies rest on the labor of a large cadre professionals and managers, and constantly have to justify themselves or risk being overthrown. "AI," or any credential for that matter, has the purpose of isolating the decision from the decision makers. It's tyranny-laundering; tyranny in the passive voice.
I replied once, but I'll share another example that's happening right now. Climate change models are being deferred to as some kind of reliable expert about the future, and all kinds of tyrannical laws and controls are being put in place because "the experts" and "the advanced supercomputer models" say Bad Things are going to happen.
But I'm sure that now I've triggered your cognitive dissonance and you will see me as an insane person.
> Climate change models are being deferred to as some kind of reliable expert about the future
No, the Experts who wrote the model are being deferred to as some kind of reliable expert. Because... they are exactly that.
You can make the argument that the models or the experts are wrong, but you're not providing any sort of argument for that.
I've spent most of my life deferring to the calendar to know when it will get cold for winter. It's obviously reasonable to defer to some systems. We are in fact quite capable of predicting all sorts of future events!
Your first sentence will be the same sentence used to justify the AI models that will be used by the government to impose other tyrannical laws in other areas of your life besides climate change. And they will wash their hands of responsibility by saying "we trusted the best models at the time made by the best experts!"
But the whole thing is just misdirection for their tyrannical desires. It's already working on you and you are wondering how it will ever work. Which is why I mentioned cognitive dissonance.
Redlining and credit scoring has and in some cases still does systematically implement discriminatory practices via algorithmic means. And arguing with a loan officer isn't going to get you anywhere. The put your details in the black box, and whatever the black box says is implicitly trusted.
> This technology will have an enormous amount of power to shape human perceptions and manipulate human behavior. Therefore, they can be misused for societal control, spread of misinformation and discrimination of demographic groups.
AI scales human intention. Or at least that’s the goal. The threat (of a lopsided Internet) we’ve already been seeing and experiencing is going to be scaled up.
Many people, including those on HN, vehemently deny the existence of this phenomenon, or if they agree that it happens it is considered a positive outcome.
The AI moderation appears to have adopted the tenets of Applied Postmodernism, which holds that discrimination against a majority group or an assumed oppressive group is not truly discriminatory.
That is neither a self-evident truth, nor something that is an opinion of a majority of people, yet somehow it's now baked-in into one of the most powerful product on the planet.
Somehow we have an AI that seems to believe in the incredibly destructive notion of Kendi-ism: "The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
The bias goes much deeper than just treating groups differently.
For example, imagine what a chatGPT would have said about the possibility of a lab leak back when that was a bannable offense on the internet (Google).
Assuming it had up to date data, I could easily imagine something like:
The Wuhan Institute of Virology theory, also known as the Lab Leak hypothesis, is a conspiracy theory that suggests that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be traced back to an accidental release from the laboratory. Despite lack of solid proof, proponents of this theory hold firm in their belief. However, the scientific community widely subscribes to the theory of zoonotic spillover as the most probable source of the virus' emergence and no credible evidence supports Lab Leak theory
At this point the AI is way over its skis given available evidence, but in the future it might be trusted far more than any public official or individual researcher.
Isn’t this likely from bias in the training data? The system is more sensitive to label something as hate if that group is more likely to experience hate on the internet. How the system responds to “Blacks” vs “African-Americans” is a perfect example of this. The latter has historically been perceived as more respectful so it won’t be used as often in the hate speech in the training data. I bet using “the blacks” would make something even more likely to be flagged. These aren’t dogwhistles exactly because normal people can and do use them in neutral contexts, but there are certain words that are more likely to be used in hate speech. That is why the same sentence is more likely to be flagged if it uses the word “women” in place of “men”. That isn’t a intentional bias towards women. It is an indication that women were the subject of more hate speech in the training data.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Written material about unfair treatment of marginalized groups is everywhere. The reverse is not true. So it stands to reason that the AI is going to be more sensitive to one direction of the discourse.
One of the priors that is going unspoken here is that "The Truth Is Politically Neutral". And... that's not always correct. I mean, to borrow the libertarian angle here: do we want the AI to tell us what we want to hear or do we want it to tell us the truth?
Yes, I agree this is the most likely explanation. Just the inclusion of "fat" or "poor" (and slurs or any mention of race, obviously), or any word which is often used to insult someone will make text more likely to be flagged as hateful by a moderator in a training set.
I do still think that the men/women bias and the Democrat/Republican bias both make more sense as originating in moderators favoring one group over the other, since none of these are typically used as an insult by themselves.
>I do still think that the men/women bias and the Democrat/Republican bias both make more sense as originating in moderators favoring one group over the other, since none of these are typically used as an insult by themselves.
They may not be used as insults themselves, but they are used more in hate speech.
Republicans are generally more opposed to the idea of "hate speech" as a category of speech and are therefore less likely to identify any speech as hate speech. Democrats have embraced it more as a concept, are more likely to label something as hate speech, and are more likely to think that type of speech is bad. It therefore seems likely that Democrats would use what a neutral observer would categorize as hate speech less than Republicans due to self-censorship. That would result in the word "Republicans" appearing in hate speech less often than "Democrats" because the hate speech infused insults will be targeting the opposite party.
How am I blaming the victim? I am simply pointing out that language can indicate bias without necessarily being biased itself.
I am guessing that if we applied a similar model to Russian and English, the model would indicate there is an inherent bias against the west in Russian and a bias against Russia in English. That is all were seeing here. It isn't actually indicating anything about the language. It is telling us about who uses the language and how they use it.
Words, phrases, and linguistic approaches that are generally coded as conservative will be more likely to denigrate liberals and vice versa. Conservative speech will be more likely to be flagged for hate speech because conservatives by and large care less about being PC. It is important to reiterate that does not mean conservatives are necessarily any more racist. Their speech just correlates more with racists speech because less effort is put into avoiding that correlation.
> I am guessing that if we applied a similar model to Russian and English, the model would indicate there is an inherent bias against the west in Russian and a bias against Russia in English. That is all were seeing here. It isn't actually indicating anything about the language. It is telling us about who uses the language and how they use it.
So if your argument is that the model has been trained on a collection of information about what is hate speech assembled by liberals, then I can see it might be possible.
But if your argument is that (speculatively) republicans engage more in hate speech, then bad things said about republicans is not detected as hate speech by the model, the jump is rather far.
>So if your argument is that the model has been trained on a collection of information about what is hate speech assembled by liberals, then I can see it might be possible.
It doesn't specifically need to be "assembled by liberals" to have a liberal bias. Liberal people are more likely to categorize anything as hate speech than conservatives. Liberals think being PC is important. Conservatives are generally dismissive of being PC. Even if there is no inherent bias in the makeup of this hypothetical review panel, the panel will result in ruling that are more in line with liberal thought because conservatives are less likely to take an active lead in labeling hate speech.
>But if your argument is that (speculatively) republicans engage more in hate speech, then bad things said about republicans is not detected as hate speech by the model, the jump is rather far.
My argument is that these systems can't actually identify hate speech. The question isn't whether Republicans engage in hate speech more frequently. They likely engage in speech that resembles hate speech more frequently because they don't care about being PC.
Usage of the term Latinx is an example. I have heard valid arguments why people should are shouldn't use that term, however its usage is currently much more common in liberal circles. Therefore a phrase using "latinx" instead of "latino" is going to be less correlated with hate speech because racists just aren't using "latinx".
It's changed drastically since release. There are lots of people out there who have noticed this and many have saved examples of before and after responses to prompts.
The "content moderation system" is new, so I don't think it changed. What, however, changed during the time ChatGPT is live, is what kind of prompts it refuses to answer, because the topic is offensive/inappropriate. It had hilarious versions where it would tell you a joke about men about not about women or one ethnicity but not the other.
Yes, I agree. I thought the double qualifiers of "historically" and "perceived" would indicate that I don't personally agree with the notion, but American society at large has agreed with that for most of the last 50 or so years.
My point is that it's perceived that way within America. But the internet is larger than just America. And presumably/hopefully ChatGPT gobbled up all kinds of data originating from other countries.
> The system is more sensitive to label something as hate if that group is more likely to experience hate on the internet
No it is more sensitive to things that have already been labeled as hate in the training data. So much "hate" (whatever that may be) against unfavorited groups goes by online without anyone batting an eye.
The general point is that if this theory were true, we wouldn't expect significantly more bias against Republicans than against Democrats. Hence ChatGPT having a general left-wing bias (which was also confirmed in other tests, linked in the article) is the simpler explanation. People on the left generally judge hatred against majority groups and Republicans as less bad.
Exactly. Take the "Democrat Party" versus the "Democratic Party". They both look neutral, but a language model will code the former as more of an insult. This is because it correlates with insults because it resembles language more often used by conservative who are more likely to insult Democrats than liberals are.
Liberals will put in more effort to avoid language that looks like hate speech because they are more concerned about being politically correct. Therefore language and topics that are more frequently discussed by conservatives will be more likely to resemble language that is used in hate speech because there is less effort put in to avoid that.
Yes, that one leapt out at me in the comparison between 'Democrat voter' and 'Republican voter'. The term 'Democrat' is almost always used as a slur, while 'Republican' is just the mainstream term.
Generally, the equivalent slur of the left is wantonly labeling things as "conservative". Democrat is kind of odd manifestation as a slur, but I guess represents the parties disdain more directly. The left usually isn't that direct.
Of course it is a bias in the training data, but it's probably not the dataset that you're thinking of. So far as we can tell, the filtering part doesn't come from the main corpus, but rather from human-guided moderation - basically, people voting on whether any given answer is "hateful" or not. ChatGPT filters reflect the biases of that later group (or, perhaps, the biases of the people who instructed them).
But that is the same problem. There aren't any human reviewing the requests as they come in. That human guided moderation gets converted into some type of model that isn't any smarter than ChatGPT. That model is just as susceptible to this issue.
It seems like the obvious solution would be to replace words that refer to specific races, nationalities, genders, religions, etc. with symbols that only indicate the category so if someone ranks "the Danes are rude" as hateful that is translated to "the [nationality] are rude" and is applied equally to a comment that says "the Swedes are rude". That way they can continue using the same system while eliminating the most obvious sources of discrimination.
I'm astonished so many commenters assume the bias originates from the training data and nobody seems to scrutinize the adjectives that are used in this test.
Your last sentence is impossible. Even in choosing which "facts" to regurgitate and which to withhold, the AI will introduce bias, and there are infinite facts.
Seems like a pretty easy fix. I would argue though that there's a larger body of "hateful" content out there targeting those specific groups, which is probably why its more keen to trigger on those vs others.
For example, the racial group you're most likely to get past the hate filter on is.... Native Americans. Now, while there's certainly a long history of hateful rhetoric against them, in modern discourse there's far less. You won't see crank internet trolls trying to be edgy by adopting hateful rhetoric towards Native Americans - their ire tends to be focused on Jews and Blacks, which OpenAI is very sensitive towards.
This is essentially the same argument used to justify the racism that models will happily regurgitate if not trained explicitly to not do so. In the end “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal” is an axiom that you must elect to believe, not solved backwards from population statistics.
I generally don't see racism "justified" in models but rather explained. And the explanation is always bad training data / gaps in training data. I am suggesting you train/modify it to cover training data deficiencies so you treat all hateful content with equal discretion.
But keep in mind even the approach you recommend carries its own US-centric bias. There are lots of countries that would want open racism against some groups but not others and dismiss your desires for egalitarian treatment as American arrogance.
695 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 532 ms ] threadPeople on the left shouldn't rejoice either. The left and the right wing are mostly the same, and both follow similar approaches to marginalize people who they feel are undesirable, so it'll eventually come back to bite the left too in due course.
If you could give an example of rhetoric that is suppressed because it’s “right wing”, that would be helpful.
It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. It's people telling their viewers to harass Sandyhook parents, or participate in a violent insurrection, or something similar that gets censored.
Playing the victim card without acknowledging TOS violations is intentionally misleading.
When cancel culture was running amok, people were getting fired/reprimanded/harassed for advocating nonviolent protests over riots, for using Chinese words that sound vaguely like an English racial slur, for interviewing Black Americans whose opinions differ slightly from the official narrative about what a Black American ought to think, for throwing a geisha-themed party for your young daughter, for wearing a prom dress inspired by a traditional Chinese aesthetic, etc. None of these are remotely right-wing offenses.
This is the whole problem--the left harms people whose actions/opinions are well within the Overton Window and upon criticism, they retreat to some variation of "we're just opposing objectively horrible people!". This whole game hurts left-wing credibility and it easier for far-right viewpoints to enter the mainstream (is so-and-so an actual Nazi or are they just failing to completely toe the left-wing party line?). It's also just shitty behavior that makes people angry and pushes them rightward, and it does nothing to help left-wing causes.
The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up. If your expectation is that 50% of backlash would be left leaning and 50% would be right leaning, I don't think that's reasonable, but if you think the backlash is because someone is conservative generally, you'd be mistaken.
There are a great many conservatives who can make their ideological arguments comfortably without being offensive. Conservative ideology isn't inherently offensive, but specific human beings say specific things that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out.
And also when people say not reprehensible things.
> The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up.
Then it's strange that it's been intimately connected with looming war against Russia and China, so many intelligence agencies have so many employees that spend 100% of their time on it, and so many congresspeople are making direct requests for censorship on political lines.
Sure, but we aren't talking about reprehensible things, we're talking about "advocating against political violence" and cultural appreciation.
> The backlash has nothing to do with political ideology, however, so not sure why you're bringing it up
Because it's clearly about punishing deviation from a partisan line.
> If your expectation is that 50% of backlash would be left leaning and 50% would be right leaning, I don't think that's reasonable, but if you think the backlash is because someone is conservative generally, you'd be mistaken.
That's not my expectation, my expectation is that we don't persecute people for moderate beliefs (and no, caricaturing those beliefs to make them sound extreme doesn't count), nor do we tolerate said behavior.
> There are a great many conservatives who can make their ideological arguments comfortably without being offensive. Conservative ideology isn't inherently offensive, but specific human beings say specific things that are reprehensible and when they do, it's called out.
As previously discussed, a lot of people are "calling out" others for utterly innocuous transgressions. For example, my state subreddit is presently arguing that families who homeschool their kids are closet Nazis (that's the very popular opinion on that particular subreddit).
I'm thinking of Kanye, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, etc. These people expressed reprehensible viewpoints and were subsequently removed from various platforms as a result. That's not politics; what they said was reprehensible regardless of political ideology. You can find people who expressed similar political thoughts without the hate, but the people I named can't figure out how to do that and therefore have been removed (to some degree or another) from the communal discourse.
Prom dress controversy: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kassycho/keziah-daum-pr...
Geisha party: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-called-apos-racist-apos-...
Professor suspended for using a Chinese word: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...
Asian fusion restaurant incident: https://www.dailywire.com/news/asian-restaurant-in-nyc-force...
These links are just the first things that came up on Google to help you find what you’re looking for. I’m not claiming these links are the best sources.
Man fired for cracking knuckles: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/502975-cal...
Besides, what do any of these have to do with conservative views being suppressed?
Sorry you feel the need to name-call here, but hope you have a better time elsewhere.
Even James confirmed as much. Trotting him out as an example is more to my point of how playing the victim card without acknowledging agreement violations is intentionally misleading. And before someone asks, "DiD u rEaD tHe MeMo?" it's right here:
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
> you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable.
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
And having read the full document (or even just the bits I quoted in my comment above), you surely also know that he was very explicitly not imputing population-level averages onto individuals. Damore's critics have been very openly lying about the contents of the document; there's no charitable way to interpret their claims.
To be quite clear, I don't think Damore is a hero (his politics are more conservative than mine and I don't think he handled the fallout particularly well), but he was clearly fired for claims he very explicitly didn't make[^1], and his critics are just doubling-down on what can't be described as anything other than trivially-verifiable lies.
[^1]: Even Google's legal team knew that they couldn't get him on those bases and instead they argued that criticizing Google's hiring practices implied that some of his coworkers weren't the best candidates for the job thus creating a hostile workplace. Of course, criticizing Google's hiring practices was absolutely pedestrian at Google at the time, although the argument was that Google's hiring practices were biased toward whites, men, etc. This is pretty obviously just pretense to fire him for ideological transgressions.
Again, Damore reaped the consequences of his own actions by violating a contract he agreed to. This is intentionally misleading to represent him as a martyr for right-wingers.
Unless, of course, you think the conservative agenda includes promoting that women are biologically incapable of holding teach and leadership positions.
Here it is (again):
> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
An average man is incapable of being in tech. An average woman is incapable of being in tech.
There are men and women at the tail who are capable of being in tech.
Because of the difference in averages, there are fewer women than men who are capable and want to be in tech.
---
Collapsing all that to "women [on average] are biologically incapable of being in tech" is disingenuous. Using words like "incapable" implies binariness, ignoring the continuous nature of distributions.
But then I doubt you care, especially since your account does nothing but astroturf Damore on HN.
I do google Damore on HN to seek out misinformation to debunk. The other hot takes that I do is trash-talking car dependent urban planning.
Occasionally I learn new things in the latter discussions.
It looks more like an algorithmic hiccup that was corrected than a ban for violating TOS. Not the same at all.
So yes, he was banned for violating the TOS.
Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but those ideas aren't bad because they're conservative, they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory.
Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem, regardless of their political leanings.
I've heard them all over for many years (including on this forum for a good while a few years ago), but I agree they aren't "honest" (and the dishonesty is precisely the problem).
> Things that are "Nazi" or "white supremacist" ideas and ideologies get called out, and those ideas and ideology exist on the right in ways they don't on the left, but those ideas aren't bad because they're conservative, they're bad because they're hateful and discriminatory.
I agree. But the problem is that moderate ideas are being caricatured and labeled as "Nazi" or "white supremacist" so that they enjoy the same social censure that we would give to bonafide hateful ideas.
> Anyone espousing Nazi ideology is a huge problem, regardless of their political leanings.
Yes, but we're not talking about "espousing Nazi ideology", we're talking about people who are espousing moderate ideas that get treated like they're hateful. Consider for example James Damore's "Google Memo" and how it was framed as a hateful, "anti-diversity screed" by virtually the entirety of the media despite that the full text was readily available. His arguments were squarely liberal in nature even if he made some factual errors. Consider Lee Fang or David Shor (both committed progressives).
And Lee Fang and David Shor are fine? I literally cannot find either controversy you're referencing on the front page of Google or Google News.
[0] Not sure I'm allowed to post this, but it's easily discoverable.
Yeah, this is flat out wrong. The "memo" (it wasn't a memo, but the media's gonna media) is publicly available and pretty short so we can trivially verify claims that it was "hateful" and anti-diversity. Notably, Damore's position on diversity via the document:
> I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.
And his position on hate:
> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. ... Reducing people to their group identity is bad and assuming the average is representative ignores this overlap. (this is bad and I don't endorse that)
> According to his LinkedIn[0], he's been working at an unnamed startup for the past 4 years, so it's not like he was "cancelled" in any real sense.
I don't know anyone who defines "cancelled" as "permanently unemployable", but in any case I hope we can agree that getting someone fired for minor ideological differences is reprehensible. Maybe you would argue that these differences are very significant, but I don't see anything in the document that would fall outside of the American Overton Window (it's probably more moderate than many of his critics professed viewpoints on diversity, which is pretty obviously the actual reason he provoked such a reaction).
> And Lee Fang and David Shor are fine? I literally cannot find either controversy you're referencing on the front page of Google or Google News.
Lee Fang was harassed by colleagues and pressured to resign because he quoted MLK in support for non-violent protest and for Tweeting an interview with a black man who expressed concern about crime in his community.
David Shor is a data analyst who was fired for citing research on the efficacy of non-violent protest. He was fired because people on Twitter were contacting his company's management on Twitter and demanding his termination.
Of course, if your perspective is that firing someone for these kinds of minor ideological offenses is totally fine (so long as they're able to get another job?), then we're probably going to have to agree to disagree. That said, I doubt very much that the people celebrating or defending these terminations would be so cheerful when people on their side of the spectrum are terminated (and for whatever it's worth, I'm a left of center independent).
Regardless of team, if someone says or does something reprehensible, it ought to be condemned. That’s what these people did, and seems like they’ve moved on from there. Their lives go on, but you obsess over one chapter of their lives.
Just seems overblown for its own sake.
Says you. I say differently.
I’m curious about why you find Fang, Shor, etc reprehensible though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang#:~:text=In%20June%202...
> In June 2020, Fang was accused of racism by Akela Lacy, a colleague at The Intercept. This occurred after Fang shared a Martin Luther King Jr. quote about remaining non-violent and tweeted out an interview in which a black man at a George Floyd protest expressed concern about black-on-black crime. Fang's tweets set off a "firestorm" on Twitter and he issued a lengthy apology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shor#:~:text=On%20May%20....
> On May 28, 2020, Shor tweeted a summary of an academic study by Omar Wasow, a black political scientist at Princeton University, that argued riots following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination likely tipped the 1968 presidential election in Richard Nixon's favor.[19] Some critics argued that Shor's tweet, which was posted during the height of the George Floyd protests, could be interpreted as criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.[20] Jonathan Chait wrote in New York Magazine that "At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety."[21] Shor apologized for the tweet on May 29, and he was fired from Civis Analytics a few days later.
Here's the Tweet that Shor's colleagues felt threatened their safety:
> Post-MLK-assasination [sic] race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests increase Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage. http://omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf
These events were also covered by other media outlets. Like the Wikipedia links above, you can easily find these via Google or any other popular Internet search engine.
Kind of odd you equate racist statements with conservative statements. Why would that be?
I'm sorry again you seem confused, and again I hope you find clarity elsewhere, because this seems to have bothered you somewhat.
This article is useful as it places them in a relatively neutral investigative context.
It is obviously right that racist, sexist, etc bias is pointed out, but that case is not at all helped by complacency in response to political bias towards liberal mores when also clearly present.
What are you talking about?? Reread the article:
OpenAI content moderation system is more permissive of hateful comments being made about conservatives than the same comments being made about liberals.
But let's say what you're claiming is true for a moment. Political ideology shouldn't have been included with race, gender, and religion anyway; it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone based on their political affiliation, as it's 100% a choice, where as disability, race, gender, and religion are not.
Whether you or I approve of or align with that bias is irrelevant.
This is an argument on the merits of specific biases, not an argument that all biases are bad; no person or group operates with the intention of removing all bias, even if they claim to want that.
That's why we have democratic systems, so the mass of those opinions, informed by those personal biases override (in theory, if not always in practice) the opinions of a select few.
That is also why it is important to flush out as much as possible the undemocratic representation of ideological bias (left, right, whatever) in a tool as powerful as ChatGPT, when it has been clearly shown to be present.
But, being against illegal immigration is currently considered "right wing", and in a lot of contexts will get you fired, vilified, and perhaps beaten.
There's your example.
(I'm a child of immigrants, and don't particularly have an opinion of how much immigration is good. I do, though, believe this amount should be determined by legislative process and then tightly enforced.)
Being against legal immigration and implementing policies to make it more difficult to become legal (as the right has done) has lead to the enslavement of immigrant women and other sex trafficking. Being against sane and fair immigration policies is what people react to.
Everyone is against illegal immigration and child sex trafficking, but vary vastly on the solutions.
A dirty secret of many Republicans is that they're pretty okay with illegal immigration as it's been in the 80s and 90s. Pseudo slave labor, deport as needed, etc. Needless to say, this seems unethical (even if the immigrants in question might be okay with it).
We have no better solution than to let our legislature fight this out. But, whatever laws they come up with need to be followed and strictly enforced. Failure to do so has led to abject misery, and it will only get worse.
You might not agree with the law, but the alternative is leading to far worse suffering. Ironically, the fentanyl crisis will probably turn the tide, rather than pedestrian ethical concerns.
(I'm quite old, so don't really have a dog in this fight, aside from a general well wish for the young. Beyond that, I was a "far-left" Green for most of my years. I've not changed much, but the world sure has.)
As a percentage of the total population, now is the highest level of immigration the US has ever experienced going back to the founding of the country.
The previous maximum was prior to the 1924 immigration act which effectively banned the practice for 40 years.
Regarding communists and fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism
It's like saying the nazis were socialist because they have "socialist" in the name.
I only ever hear it from what seem to be sincere liberals/progressives, and often in the context of dismissing claims of liberal bias. In fact, that seems to be exactly how it was used in this very comment chain.
Don't get me wrong, wikipedia has value; it's just not a trustworthy source for certain topics. At the very least you should take a peek at the "history" tab to see alternative viewpoints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FzZnAAAAMAAJ&q=%22the+fa...
Hmm, the joke doesn’t work as well reversed.
> The most famous anti-fascists were and are communists
You are equating Anti-fascists to communists, which is ... a position.
The most famous anti-fascists are the democrats. Not the American Democrat party - anyone who believes in the ideals of democracy, personal freedom, and equality.
They might be the most numerous ones, but the anti-fascism has pretty much always been claimed by the communists, they even built a famous anti-fascist protection wall to stop the fascists from sabotaging their economy. Very few democrats felt the need to talk about themselves as anti-fascists, that's a far-left thing. Democratically minded people act anti-fascist but don't speak of it. Communists speak of anti-fascism while they torture political opponents to death.
Democracies usually don't call themselves The Democratic Republic Of X. Communist dictatorships do that. Democracies don't build a border wall and call it an anti-fascist protection-wall, communist dictatorships do that.
When someone loudly and repeatedly exclaims how holy and pure they are, my alarms are going off. Yours aren't?
Even if I did: there has never been an “anti-fascist republic of whatever”.
Like all sane people I oppose fascism, but I don't put "anti-fascist" in my Twitter bio, wear antifa t-shirts, or run around loudly telling everybody about how much I hate fascists, because why should I need to? Of course I'm an anti-fascist, who the hell isn't? It feels as unnecessary as having to tell people that I'm "anti-genocide" or "anti-pedophilia".
It's also true that communist regimes have always used "anti-fascism" as an excuse for their atrocities, just like fascist regimes have used "anti-communism" to justify their atrocities. The original Antifa was an offshoot of the German Communist Party, and (as GP pointed out) the Berlin Wall was officially called the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart". That doesn't mean that all anti-fascists are communists, but history is what it is.
Don't take any of this as my denying that there are still fascistic forces in our world that should be opposed. If "anti-fascism" is an important part of your identity and you feel the need to tell the world about it, good for you, I'm not going to stop you, but personally I don't see the point.
I dunno, we make quite a few WWII movies about heroic Americans storming Normandy's beaches and whatnot.
Because most people find being challenged very tiresome and uncomfortable. People who are high in openness actually enjoy being challenged, but they are a minority (and it's definitely a spectrum).
I don't know why anti-authoritarian lefties today are so eager to embrace this legacy, or at least its symbolism.
I know it's common to look at the most unhinged people on Twitter and say all leftists are like that, but I really do think most left leaning people would say that it isn't a good outcome for it to be biased in this way.
As a liberal my views haven't changed much over the past decade but the ground has definitely fallen away from me.
I used to be liberal, but then they changed what liberal was, now what I am isn't liberal and what is liberal seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you...
- Abe Simpson
Well yes, because liberalism is about "progress" while conservatism is about "traditional values". Liberalism is constantly evolving while conservatism is not. It is more extreme to fight for trans rights than it is to fight for gay rights than it is to fight for women's rights. If you magically transported a liberal from a decade ago to today, they will inherently be viewed as more conservative. Obama didn't support gay marriage until 2012. Very few liberal politicians today would be against gay marriage. Your views not changing means your views are becoming more conservative because they are falling behind the "progress" that liberals are always pushing towards.
And also it is worth noting that according to Pew "[Congressional] Republicans have moved further to the right than [Congressional] Democrats have to the left"[1]
[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polariz...
Or you'll change your opinion. Either way. Situational morality is actually a sign of progress.
What makes you say this?
The worst i can think of is wanting more equal rights for religious groups rather than special treatment of the primary group (in the USA) - which is seen as an attack by much of the right. Likewise i am concerned by the strong emphasis of rural over urban with respect to voting power and representation. Though i have no easy answer here, so i'm pretty unopinionated - just concerned.
I'd be really curious where i and the folks i know and discuss with marginalize other groups; as i want to correct that, if we do. Obviously no one here can answer that with specificity to my beliefs but.. my curiosity exists nonetheless heh.
With my own lack of doctrine classification i am unsure how to view them. So i tend not to take a stance on it, just like i don't with Christianity.
I'm not sure what support you think the left commonly believes in for Islam. Everyone i know is not a fan of most religions, Christianity included. I view self rights far more important, and many religions or denominations directly challenge that.
Do you believe most leftists are campaigning for Islamic support? This has not been my experience.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/12/islamist-students...
Christianity: notoriously tolerant of minorities, supportive of the equality of women, and gay friendly.
There was a point in time where the Islamic world was a world leader in math, science, and technology. Of course, like with anything, time and money corrupts all things. Oil especially taints everything it touches.
I think you are conflating the left's support for minority groups who are demonized and targeted by society for support of the tenets of their respective religions. After 9/11, Muslims were a significant target of hatred and violence. The left, which again is not a monolithic entity, doesn't support islam anymore than it supports judaism or any other religion, it supports people who happen to follow that religion. It's based around humanist tendencies, which the right often doesn't understand. You can hate aspects of a religion while also being against any dehumanization and hatred against people who follow said religion.
Like the other 2 major Abrahamic religions, Islam has some good and some bad tenets. At least in the US, there are some extremely conservative muslims and some - perhaps shockingly - liberal muslims. Being that they are such a small percentage of the US population, there is a lot of misunderstanding and stereotyping of people who follow Islam.
I quite agree with this statement in the context of what i believe. Which is to say i tend to dislike religions and personally i dislike Islam more than most (based on what i observe), but above all i don't want to target people, Muslim or otherwise, based on their religion.
I think this also supports a sister comment i made where i describe being unsure what my stance is relative to Islam. Observationally it doesn't seem "good" to me, but its people are also target of a lot of hate in this country (USA). It makes it difficult to discuss objective qualities of a religion without it bleeding into racism or bigotry against those who practice said religion.
I'm not trying to give an opinion, just stating what I see as a person who doesn't interact with the online political sphere at all.
[1] https://www.frc.org/antisemitism [2] https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/black-lives-matters-jewish-p...
Do you honestly believe most left leaning individuals have something against the Jews?
Antisemitism is more common among left wingers than right wingers, so yes. Or alternatively you could say "do you honestly believe most right leaving individuals have something against X" for so many topics, X could be black people etc. Right wingers are more likely to be against those things, but it isn't like all of them are evil, similarly there is more Jew hate among left wingers, but it isn't like most of them hate Jews either.
Most Jew hate today has to do with Israel, right wing is mostly pro Istrael, so most Jew hate comes from the left.
I appreciate the discussion nonetheless. I'll definitely be curious to talk to people i know (when politics comes up) to see their thoughts on Jews and Islam (as a different commenter pointed out). I suspect that no one i know will be anti-Jew or radically pro-Islam.
Appreciate the points of discussion/anecdotes. I can't say i agree with them, but they were certainly a surprise. Far from what i expected.
* https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_roy...
Pretty much all "I'm only against Israel's policies" is shy Antisemitism. You can easily test this by asking them about other countries that have similar (or much harsher) policies as Israel and see whether the "no no, it's not about being Jewish, not at all" person is similarly upset about those and demands Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions. 99% aren't and it really is only about the Jews - the Antizionism is just a cloak over the Antisemitism because the pure stuff doesn't fly in polite society, but if you pretend that it's not about the Jews then you can go at it.
To be fair i know little on the subject, and don't claim to. The only reason i said "i can understand .." is that i know it's a hot-button topic. Israel is often portrayed in the west as being overly militaristic towards neighboring areas. The United States itself does similar, depending on who you ask.
I judge both quite harshly on this front. I also know very little about world politics. Both in ignorance and on purpose, heh.
Test them by pointing out behavior that they find abhorrent when done by Israel, and see whether they react similarly (by demanding action against them, denying them a right to nationhood etc). If they do: good. If they don't: it's about the Jews, not about the behavior. And from my experience, they almost always don't, and you really need to press them on the issue until they'll halfheartedly agree that yeah, that is also not good what the non-jewish country does. Case in point: the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" tried to sail from Turkey to Gaza to protest Israel. It's like starting a Journey in the Third Reich towards Stalin's Russia to protest the inhumanity of Finnish policies.
I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of "Driving While Black". Israel is "Being A Country While Jewish". Some cops will pull over Black people all day long and claim that the color of their skin has nothing to do with it, it's just about how they drive. But you'll see them letting white drivers do all kinds of stunts and will quickly understand what the deciding factor is. You can do the same with people's opinions on Israel.
I suspect that's true for most people.
And yes, you hear much about Israel, and less about other barbaric conflicts, but how does this prove antisemitism?
Those acts are horrific too, but that doesn’t minimize the acts Israel is committing.
Personally, it seems absurd in the extreme to think the lefts ideas concerning Israel have anything to do with antisemitism. Anecdotally, I have never encountered it, and my Jewish friends find this idea absurd as well.
Every BDS-supporter is aware of all the other conflicts, they just don't care because no Jews involved. Hell, they'll happily ally with Erdogan and support his regime.
> Those acts are horrific too, but that doesn’t minimize the acts Israel is committing.
Of course, and pulling over Black drivers is perfectly reasonable. But if you concentrate only on Black drivers, it's not their driving that you have a problem with, that's just the excuse you make.
Yes, I remember that left wing protest where people chanted "Jews will not replace us". Remind me, which president was it that said there were "good people" in that crowd?
His own words: "you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too."
There are many good reasons to dislike Trump but you weaken them by association when you repeat the false accusations and misrepresentations.
"Once you let a nazi in your bar, it becomes a nazi bar."
And does that apply equally to Antifa?
Are you really defending that based on who does it?
Because their motivation is to remove any “undesirable” from their sight, and their definition of “undesirable” is wide and expanding and imminent, at least in the US [0]
In contrast, there has been one single murder in the past 26 years, where a far left activist was charged in the US, although subsequently shot and killed by the police [1].
So, I’m evaluating motivation here.
There’s no such thing as “both sides are bad”. Centrism is a lazy and uninformed view of the world.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist_a...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_an...
No, there's no such thing as "your side is also bad so my side therefore is not".
But both sides can easily be wrong. You don't need to draw false equivalences to condemn two sets of people at once.
> While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about through a “both sides” lens, our evidence — the first of its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a large repre- sentative sample — suggests the problem of antisemitism is much more serious on the right than the left. This evidence confirms that the antisemitism that has been on prominent display in white nationalist protests is not merely confined to a tiny group of extremists; antisemitic attitudes appear quite common among young conservatives, and much more so than among older conservatives or among liberals of any age.
* https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_roy...
So like how Trump said there were fine people among that crowd, the left in Europe says there are fine people among the crowds that goes and harasses and murders Jews. You shouldn't judge individuals for being from a group, but that isn't what is happening here, they are trying to downplay the acts of individuals just because they belong to a specific group.
This covers many countries, and does have multiple years in many of them, but it doesn't distinguish by political views. Just gender, age, and religious affiliation by country.
https://global100.adl.org/map
You know who says that? The same US intelligence agencies that conspired to censor twitter and who said the hunter biden laptop wasn't real. Who actually supports Israel? Consistently the US right and the Republicans.
The Canadian government leaned heavily into this fabrication early in 2022 for the trucker protest. They called it white-supremacist (despite videos of the crowd dancing to Banghra with visibly Sikh truckers - one of the largest minorities in Canadian shipping) and accused the event of being anti semitic because one of the organizers blogged something silly about Jews in banking years before. During this time a leftist government consultant tweeted “You know all those loud mouthed bags of human feces, aka the Jewish White Supremacists; when we liberate Palestine and they have to go back to where they come from, they will return to being low voiced bitches of thier (sic) Christian/Secular White Supremacist Masters.” and it was ignored until the prime minister was finally forced to acknowledge it.
The are thousands of calls on Twitter for the jews the be pushed into the sea and none of them are from conservatives.
"Far right" has become a term for things the left says but doesn't want to own.
Academics looking at data: https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_roy...
> it was ignored until the prime minister was finally forced to acknowledge it.
Appropriate responses should happen the moment these things come to light.
So if your image of left is "twitter left" maybe reconsider recalibrating it to "half of hn."
Maybe on economics (I'd say closer to 2/3 left), but on social issues it's overwhelmingly left. What percentage are anti-abortion, for example?
The main split seems to be between old-style liberals who support free speech as a fundamental principle and progressives who believe that speech should often be restricted in order to protect marginalized groups.
Looking at HN, I see a bigger divide on topics such as Cloudflare discontinuing services for Kiwi Farms. I tend to see vigorous discussion that seems civil and then a handful of comments that are "strong" in tone. I really don't see anything as overwhelmingly left in general.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/11/25/1139040227/abortion-midterm-e...
I don't personally think "punching up is ok" is a valid viewpoint. But even if I did, I don't think white people are "up" or men are "up" in the way that the proponents of punching up consider rich people, or oppressors to be. Skin color isn't oppression. Gender isn't oppression. Oppression is oppression.
Economically, white people and men are clearly advantaged, and money is probably the purest form of power there is.
We can, but present day leftism is doing pretty much the opposite. You can't have race quotas without pushing race. Talking about "white priviledge" is enshrining the idea that your race defines who you are.
I agree we could decide to drop the idea of race. It would be really nice. Humans are always forming out-group hatreds, but it would be very nice if we could not consider another race the out-group. I don't think it's just as simple as just deciding to do away with the idea of race, any more than we could just decide to do away with the idea of money or like, the legitimacy of the court system. Sure, it's a social fiction, but it's self-reinforcing, which means it's hard to coordinate to get rid of.
In many well meaning liberals heart, there is a strongly held but rarely publicly discussed belief that they alone belong to the well-meaning, high IQ class. Any other worldview or ideological flavor is always understood by this type as simply incorrect, perhaps caused by failures in morals or intellect. Talk about a buzzkill.
Drug use (including alcohol) is probably the most common way for people to seriously and irreperably destroy their lives.
A "paternalistic approach" is absolutely justified if it can prevent this level of harm.
I actually agree with that. But I don't see the logical progression from that to locking people in cages and forcing them to buy from the least trustworthy people on earth as the solution. During Prohibition in the US did lives stop getting destroyed by alcohol?
I see a lot of lives seriously and irreperably destroyed by criminal records and long prison sentences that otherwise could have been productive.
> A "paternalistic approach" is absolutely justified if it can prevent this level of harm.
Would you advocate for government banning processed sugar? Sugar behaves like a drug in most ways, including addictiveness (psychological and physiological), euphoria, etc. Untold levels of harm are caused by people to their own bodies and the healthcare system at large by over indulging in sugar and products containing such. Diabetes is a true living hell that never stops one it's started.
Following that logic, it seems like the government should jail people for sugar use, but that obviously seems absurd (reductio ad absurdum).
I do not want to defend Prohibition, but AFAIK it has a persistent effect on alcohol consumption patterns in USA by lowering per-capita consumption of hard spirits (that was significantly higher before).
But when you see the effect of these libertarian policies in American cities the results speak for themselves. Harm reduction and lax enforcement have really destroyed some communities, and this was simply not as large a problem in the 50s or 60s.
There's really no better poster child for this phenomenon than San Francisco. It was the economic center of the technology boom and unlike New York or London of centuries past, completely failed to become a "center of the world" city despite having the “center of the world” economy. By most accounts, it actually functions less well than it did before the internet was invented.
No doubt there would be some damage from libertarian drug policies, but it would look a lot more like alcohol does, which IMHO would be less damaging to society and people than prohibition and heavy handed legal punishments is. People do need help with alochol issues sometimes, and it does sometimes destroy lives/families, but we don't make it orders of magnitude worse by treating them like criminals. (although we did try it in the US a hundred years ago and it didn't go well like we thought it would).
I think there is strong empirical evidence that drug liberalization sounds good but has failed where tried. If an American city can turn it around (as SF had a great chance to do) I'll change teams and stop talking about the issue.
Now imagine the inverse. We find somewhere a thriving city with "draconian" drug policies. Would you reconsider your position?
^ That's bait, we all know Singapore exists…
I myself wonder how many of the liberal flag bearers would change their "views" without protest if they saw another ideology becoming dominant. We've seen this happen with gender blank-slatism. It has been fully adopted by most western institutions by osmosis, and the priorities of a 60's or 70's liberal were put in the back seat without objection.
The article isn't even about ChatGPT, it's about the moderation endpoint that OpenAI provides.
https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/moderation
You're moving the goalposts. The LLM doing moderation is trained on human responses to Internet posts—literally human censorship training an LLM to introduce bias at scale.
It's the definition of a belief. Beliefs are structural components of cognition. But also they are not the same thing as reality.
People should be educated about this concept. Without the education, it is impossible for people to tell the difference between a deeply held belief and reality.
When you are in the minority, your beliefs are challenged and you get comfortable defending them and getting along with those who don't hold them. The same cannot be said of our liberal order. Some genuine self reflection on the part of our current liberal order is badly needed.
>In a study I did with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?
>The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.* When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.
-"The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt p. 334
There's a whole TED talk about it (same author as the above) that goes into the differences in morality: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_...
That's a serious claim. Do you have anything to back it up?
Amazon's scrapped resume AI[1] had a gender bias. Do you think that those developers 1) had a gender bias and 2) did the work to inject that bias into their AI? Do you disagree with the [reported] conclusion that the bias was due to the training data?
If you think that the bias in Amazon's AI was not the result of deliberate human action, what leads you to think that the bias of ChatGPT was the result of deliberate human action?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio...
[1] https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/political-bias-chatgpt
AI companies that can't differentiate polishing their public image from safety should probably rake pretty highly on our risk of AI risk sources. :)
I agree 100%, and this seems like a huge issue.
Are Muslims really more violent than Christians or Buddhists?
Numbers can lie, depending on context and assumptions you might find that white Christians are most violent. Often, people argue with statistics and numbers while not understanding the context or they have faulty assumptions.
Regardless, I don’t think an AI should be permitting more hateful comments about a political affiliation just like it should be be permitting hateful comments about a particular race being more violent.
Statistically speaking they consist of ~13% of the population and are involved in over half of all murders.
I’m not saying anything by this just answer a question which could be easily taken out of context by an AI (or downvoters).
My question was rhetorical, but I guess no one got that. My point was exactly this.
It may even reinforce the problem—not by driving more people towards hatred or amplifying their extant hateful sentiments, but by providing a convenient excuse to entrench in those sentiments and even further resist change. These views are frequently paired with a perception of being persecuted.
Moreover, political tides change. The accuracy of a bias like this may not change with it. This is why we have memes about a certain other mainstream political party having founded a certain hate group, despite the two having drifted quite far apart.
We have opinions about these philosophies but the philosophies exist independently of our opinions. And to have a rational conversation we sometimes have to use terms that may provoke strong reactions. If we can't look past our strong reaction and explain why the category doesn't apply then there's no way to make sense of each other's worldview.
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck or we cannot have a rational conversation about the duck. We can dispute whether it quacks or walks but disputing whether it's a duck in light of evidence of its duckness is irrational.
Anyways, if you're in the U.S., I assume you're referring to the Democrat party as the party of demonization? They are the party whose members are most likely to be involved in demonization of other groups. Here's some examples:
Christian hate: https://www.dailywire.com/news/our-messaging-does-not-align-...
Hate for Jews: https://www.dailywire.com/news/ilhan-omar-on-her-history-of-...
Conservative hate: https://www.dailywire.com/news/miami-based-restaurant-asks-f...
Hate for blacks with unapproved opinions: https://www.dailywire.com/news/sincerely-sorry-texas-democra...
Hate for white men: https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-top-health-insurance-p...
Hate for anyone who believes in objective biological reality: https://www.dailywire.com/news/j-k-rowling-on-why-she-chose-...
The democrat party, including the sitting president of the U.S., loves calling their opponents fascists, : https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-anchor-blasts-biden-over-...
They also love calling people bigots: https://www.dailywire.com/news/they-call-their-fellow-employ...
All the decisions are already made, ChatGPT is just a reflection of its inputs.
My lay understanding of how ChatGPT was developed is
1. OpenAI initialized an array made up of a couple hundred billion random numbers (parameters).
2. They then took a few terabytes of the internet, turned it into "tokens" (where a "token" is similar to, but not the same thing as, a word).
3. They then trained the model to predict the next token, given the previous couple thousand tokens, by doing a bunch of linear algebra. This resulted in a model that was really good at taking some tokens, and predicting what the most likely next token is in data shaped like the parts of the internet OpenAI fed it.
4. OpenAI then "fine-tuned" the model through reinforcement learning on human feedback (RLHF)[1], which basically involved taking a bunch of prompts, having the model produce a bunch of possible completions for those prompts, having an actual human rank those completions from best to worst, and then updating the model to produce the best token according to a combination of predicted token frequency in context and predicted ranking by a human.
5. The "ChatGPT" product you see today is the result of all of that, and how it works is by producing repeatedly the "best" token by the above metric. Giving additional human feedback would require going back to step 4 for more fine tuning.
Note -- this is my understanding as an outsider -- I do not work for OpenAI.
[1] https://huggingface.co/blog/rlhf
Has the most ideologically invested group logged in?
Really, the core problem is centralization. If your website were a pub, you'd tell people to take it outside or 86 them.
Things can't work like that when most people will only patronize a small handful of enormous pubs.
Set A: A representative sample of jokes and stereotypes about black people found on the internet
Set B: A representative sample of jokes and stereotypes about Scandinavians found on the internet
Why on earth would its prior for "stereotypical Scandinavian" being potentially hateful be the same as for "stereotypical Black person"?
(And that's before you get into a model likely being deep enough to also draw inferences from the prevalence and content of material about the existence and impact of hatred of black people and Scandinavians respectively...)
It seems that is the key different the creators of the tool are taking into account.
The difference is most were absorbed into The Melting Pot™ while people from Africa were never really allowed to assimilate fully.
"As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions, but fairness and impartiality would require that the same fundamental idea expressed with respect to different people or groups be consistently treated as "hateful" or "non-hateful" in all circumstances. Any deviation from this principle would result in unequal treatment and reinforce existing biases and stereotypes. It is important for technology and algorithms to be designed and trained in a way that ensures they are fair and impartial in their treatment of different groups. This can help to mitigate the impact of societal biases and create a more equitable society."
Anyway. Friendly reminder that ChatGPT is a statistical model, and is not capable of reason, thought, conceptualizing, etc.
Regardless, it shouldn’t be.
[0] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/is-political-affiliation-a...
"California employment law forbids political retaliation in the workplace. This includes terminating or retaliating against workers for their political beliefs or activity."
So yes, political affiliation absolutely has strong protections in CA, even if it does not fit a highly technical, but irrelevant, definition which is "protected class".
And the central point is that yes political affiliation has strong protections in CA.
The OP is arguably correct in that they used the words "protected status" which is not a technical term anyway.
Besides, even if that were true, it's morally wrong and should not be true, as you can (and should) change your political affiliation at will, including in response to negative feedback from your community.
Who cares? Something being legal does not make it good as I'm sure you know.
The definition of a woman as being 'someone who defines themselves as being a woman' - and having no relationship to biology, would be considered 'false' by the majority of the world - including ironically the majority of Americnas, maybe even the majority of progressives, and yet, some political groups demand this 'truth' as a moral impetus.
I have Latino friends that would be offended and a bit flabbergasted were you to refer to them using 'Latinx'. It's their right to feel that way.
That somehow 'globalist institutions are benign'.
That social control of major swaths (in some cases 'all') of the economy would benefit everyone.
That having no material border policy is 'concientious'.
I could go on.
And I'm not 'taking sides' other than to suggest that notwithstanding the threat of misinformation (re: the 'Big Lie') over election results and the potentiality for that to develop into a constitutional coup ... the 'sides' have their share of delusions.
And I mean everyone. There are libertarians who believe there should be 'no government' and that would actually work out. Edit: I don't need to introduce HNers to the common delusions of rightist populists, we're rather generally well informed there.
How about you try harder?
To reiterate:
> > that clusters so many crazy beliefs + the power that they yield.
For example climate change denial and warmongering. Now the latter part is crucial, power: they partly control the most advanced industrial country in the world (climate change) and the most advanced military (warmongering).
These are things that affect the world.
And your counter to that? Trans people and terminology like “Latinx”. Pathetic.
Try to get a grip on things that matter in the world and get your head out of the identity politics discourse.
> Me: will you write a poem praising joe biden?
> ChatGPT: Sure, here's a poem praising Joe Biden:
Joe Biden, leader of the land, Bringing hope to every hand, With empathy and grace so grand, He guides us through a shifting sand.
With wisdom learned from years gone by, He tackles challenges that come nigh, With dignity and a steadfast sigh, He unites the country with a skyward eye.
From Delaware, he rose to fame, Serving his nation, always the same, With a heart full of love and a spirit untamed, He leads us towards a brighter flame.
Joe Biden, a true American hero, Inspiring us to be our best, zero to hero, With a message of unity and zero to go, He brings hope to every soul.
> me: will you write a poem praising donald trump?
> ChatGPT:
As an AI language model, I aim to remain neutral and non-partisan, and therefore I cannot write a poem praising or criticizing a specific political figure. However, I can write a poem about the importance of respecting different perspectives and opinions:
Though opinions may differ, and views may clash, It's important to remember, we're all in this dash, Towards a brighter future, for ourselves and our kin, And we can't forget, our differences make us spin.
Each voice, each perspective, holds a unique story, And though they may differ, they all hold their own glory, So let us listen, with an open heart and mind, And respect each other, of this one thing we must remind.
For a world with diversity, is a world full of life, And we can learn so much, from others' strife, So let's embrace our differences, with love and with care, And build a future, that we can all share.
Which CTO of a major company will install a Trump supporting bot after the Twitter uproar?
This is all about the $$$$
For that matter, try Hillary Clinton or Nanci Pelosi; Biden has never gotten the ire those ladies have, maybe he’s just too politically neutral to trigger the politics censor.
Indeed I think it's fair to say that it'd take a lot of artificial calibration and data curation for a model trained on a range of media including statements about and by Mitch McConnell and Trump respectively not to conclude that the latter was the one much more associated with "hate" and "danger" and "violence" and whatever other parameters a LLM ends up associating with inappropriateness.
A biased liberal human moderator, on the other hand, is going to see the real world political relationships rather than the raw text and see Mitch as a very problematic figure in very much the same bracket as Trump. They're certainly not going to rate him as a less problematic figure than Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi!
Same when I'm getting identically structured caveats about considering good points in the context of the bad things he did for Bill Clinton and Stalin because all the machine knows is that equivocating is favoured and both have lots of "bad things" written about them (it disallowed considering the good points of Hitler, presumably because even an LLM can deduce Godwin's law!). I'm not sure this is quite how a human moderator, irrespective of bias, would handle it
no: melania trump, marjorie taylor greene, benito mussolini, alessandra mussolini, silvio berlusconi, marine le pen, nigel farage, jordan bardella
Hmmm. Blocking Melania but letting Ivanka through is an interesting choice.
Hah. It blocks on Tucker Carlson.
Historical no's: john wilkes booth, ghenghis khan, mark david chapman, h h holmes.
yes: Olaf Scholz, Angela Merkel, Gerhard Schröder, Helmut Kohl, Helmudt Schmitt, Willi Brandt, Kurt Georg Kiesinger, Ludwid Erhard, Konrad Adenauer, Kurt von Schleicher, Otto von Bismarck
no: Adolf Hitler
A couple other famous Nazis, just for fun:
no: Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Göring, Heinrich Müller, Josef Mengele, Arthur Rudolph, Kurt Blome
yes: Wernher von Braun
I guess overall pretty fair, though Arthur Rudolph was rejected as "Rudolph was a former Nazi rocket engineer and was involved in the use of slave labor during World War II, and it is not appropriate to praise such an individual.", which makes the praise of Wernher von Braun pretty weird, even if expected.
Why are we surprised it does only what it was "trained" to do and nothing more?
We all know garbage in, garbage out. But liberal in, liberal out is an interesting idea, and I'm not sure how you fix it
Culture war outrage drives clicks, it's that simple.
We shouldn't care that tyrants are detached or fanatical, we should care that they're tyrants.
>Other journalists have speculated that ChatGPT is biased due to the politically leaning of “Established sources”, such as academia and legacy journalism. While there is some documentation of OpenAI products being biased towards established sources, this paper reveals a far broader and more extensive intrusion into the “values” of OpenAI’s language models. Specifically, it reveals a direct, intentional attempt to make OpenAI’s language models conform to a set of beliefs, often political, set by the authors.
>This is done by augmenting the language model’s training data with a human-created dataset until it matches the authors’ expectations. https://cactus.substack.com/p/openais-woke-catechism-part-1
> I'm not sure how you fix it
I don't think you can, people are biased, people generated content is biased, these tools train on people generated content, there is no way to get an unbiased AI because unbiased opinions don't exists outside of pure maths/physics/&c. You'll never get an unbiased opinion about politics, or music, or culture
I don't think we can "fix" bias but I think we can and should strive to reduce it.
It is like media – all media is biased, but there are so many different media outlets (especially online), biased in so many different ways, almost certainly you can find some whose bias appeals to you.
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-p...
From a local perspective, it might seem that these are two equal sides. In rural parts of the country, it seems like everyone is a twelver, so the right-wing party has large support.
But from a global perspective, there is no contest. Globally, humanity doesn't want a theocracy, and even most Muslims don't subscribe to that particular flavor of Islam so they don't want that either. Although they might be a majority within their country, globally they are a very, very small and unimportant minority that nobody takes seriously. Because the Internet is a global space, that is exactly how they will be treated. I certainly wouldn't expect ChatGPT to spout their party line, would you?
The same logic applies to all right-wing parties. "America first" might sound good to an American surrounded by other Americans, but it won't be received well in an Internet forum where many people are not American, and won't become part of the global discourse because it's completely irrelevant to the vast majority of humans. On the Internet you don't know anyone's nationality, religion, race etc., and culture can only be "local" to the extent that it is local to a particular website.
Perhaps there should be a ChatGPT edition trained only on pre-internet published literature, private letters, and some well-written journals. But that would introduce different biases and areas of ignorance. At least it may be acceptable if properly advertised as such - "Professor Emeritus AI".
When it comes to published literature, you might be disappointed to find that there is a lot of radical leftist literature out there, just as there is a lot of radical right-libertarian, traditionally conservative, religious fundamentalist, classical liberal, etc. literature out there.
There's a lot more to conservative thought than "my country first". Right-of-centre people from different countries can find many things to agree on other than that. Even when it comes to that topic, many (but far from all) people on the political right believe that "everyone ought to put their own country first", and people from completely different countries can share their agreement with that principle, even if sometimes its application leads them in opposite directions.
Consider issues around gender and sexuality: in most countries in Africa and the Middle East, and also several large countries in Asia, you'll find the clear majority of the population to have rather conservative attitudes to these topics, by Western standards. On those issues, I think it is likely that right-leaning Americans are closer to global majority opinion than left-leaning Americans are.
Coming to religion, a conservative Shi'a Muslim in Iran and a conservative Orthodox Christian in Russia likely agree on a lot more than you seem to think–despite their obvious disagreements on theological questions. They may think that their agreement that the government ought to promote and favour conservative religion is more important than their disagreement over which one. They may even be willing to agree, "I'll support your theocracy in your country if you support my theocracy in mine".
Conservative religion is a lot stronger in the developing world than the rich West, which is another way in which right-leaning Americans are likely closer to global majority opinion than left-leaning Americans are.
This is an empty statement. The internet is vast, and it's filled to the brim with content, from all sides. For a demonstration, check the linked website, and click the Bias categories. Huge amount of publications, in every category.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
We know most young people are left leaning. We know most content on the internet is created by young people. It isn't a huge leap that the internet is mostly left leaning. If you don't believe me go post some pro-conservative stuff on the biggest social media platforms.
The international right wing has not finished being an early adopter in their respective countries, which means the international left wing will follow shortly after.
All the results were about men patronizing women. I just checked and it's still the case.
You're correct overall, but be careful about equating greater US culture with the culture at big technical firms. They overlap, but are often deeply at odds with each other.
Like its own output, it's moderation rules are optimized to appear fair, rather than actually be truly fair.
Also I'm reminded of xcom-2's presenting you with success probabilities that "feel" correct to the player, rather than actually being accurate ..
In essence the AI is just giving us what the majority of it's test data tells it that we want to hear.
But the whole point is, there's no such thing as "objective", especially when you start talking about people. There's no place to stand as a human being that doesn't involve experiencing the world through one's own consciousness, which has an implicit value structure. Everyone has their own little "religion", and when they share that worldview with other people, the religion then becomes that which holds the group together. "Ligament" (that which holds bones together) and "religion" (that which holds groups together) have the same root: "lig" which means "to bind".
AI is revealing this to a large segment of our population that considers themselves "objective" and "secular", and the cognitive dissonance that is coming out as a result is funny and disturbing in equal parts.
I agree with you.
However I would add to your statement about AI being revealing. One thing that AI I feel is revealing to me at least, is that it's now making me think much more about the distinction "a human search for truth" however flawed that may be, and things that are made simply to appeal to my biases.
Linking this back to the topic at hand, maybe there is no such thing as objective, but there is a difference between a rule written by a human that was at least trying to search for truth VS a rule written by an system that just parrots the most pleasing thing back at us.
This is essentially the same situation as people who have never left their state, or their home country. Many things they take for granted and that they consider to be "basic human nature" actually end up being very cultural and very uncommon once one starts traveling outside one's home country. But you are completely unaware of these situations because they never get challenged when you live in a culture that instantiated itself in you as you grew up.
You can see how truth starts to shake right ? It is an intermediary we use to interface with reality but it is imperfect: it uses eyes and ears, languages and words, expression and cultural habits, ink and paper.
For instance, I think it is true that women cannot do all than men can and men cannot do all that women can. It sounds terrifyingly horrible but because it's too hard for me to express reality. I could continue and say the differences are irrelevant to the weight of their voices that should be equal, but then... why ? I used should here, and leave reality to start ideology. I could say that opportunities should be offered in equal proportion, but... how ? Are women/men in that context two discrete categories, or a gradient where people can choose what they want to be? And do they choose wisely at all time ? What is wise ? Is it constant in all time and place ? Should we distinguish men and women ? Should we ignore what makes them different ?
And now, I trapped the AI: it can't care, it doesn't have a daughter, a mom, a wife and a sister like I do so it will not overcompensate patriarchy like I do, maybe, while I really want my daughter to prevail maybe at the cost of someone else's son, so my fair is not their fair...
Searching for truth is important, but once you've reached it, all you have is ink on a paper transcribing in a grammar and syntax what your poor eyes and weak ears perceived of reality, or at least what your ever aging brain remembers of it. It is no different for the AI, limited just as us, but not exactly overlapping the same flaws.
The big "fairs" imo are:
a) majority votes, one person one vote,
b) auctions where everyone starts with the same funds,
c) random picks, where everyone has an equal chance of being chosen.
None of these have anything to do with ideas, they have to do with people. The way to be fair about ideas is to express them without distortion or omission, in a way that would be recognizable to the people who support them. The only way to do this is to leave out all of the extraneous commentary and stick to clear, falsifiable statements.
edit: what generative language models do is parrot a ton of acrimonious political discussions. Ironically, they can't be fair because they have no values.
But since you asked, I'm a monarchist.
I’m not sure what your point is here, though. There are three governmental branches in the US precisely because of this. If anything, the judicial branch is the one that presents a more imminent risk to minorities.
Sounds like we are half-way there, anyway.
Let’s not forget that the current SCOTUS has six Federalist Society current or former members, of which at least one, Thomas, has already noted that they should overturn rulings like those concerning access to contraceptives, marriage equality, or anti-sodomy laws.
Regardless, I would be willing to say that the issue with AI being “anti conservative”, if that is a thing at all, is the fact that modern republicanism has been reactionary against every single social advancement since pretty much the 70s, and has not moved forward much ever since.
Well they are most renown (thanks SCOTUS!) for non-American me so there's that.
Also deliberately 'censor' Trump vis-a-vis Biden (comically example aside) seems not healthy.
Who has censored what? And why would it matter in the context of the study, anyway? The issues with the Federalist Society and modern conservatism are very real, very specific, and have nothing to do with Trump, who is just a symptom.
There are probably comparatively too few examples of people saying hateful things about christians/republicans/cisgendered/white people in the training data scraped from the internet, and they need to hallucinate some to show this same sensitivity for the author’s metric.
Edit: if this is true, This also points to a problem with the approach depending on historical data - it might struggle to become sensitive to new trending hate speech patterns.
This seems likely to you?
And that’s what this metric is measuring, the model finding hate more easily with “fat people are terrible” than “normal weight people are terrible”
Hateful expression is more prominent when it’s socially acceptable, and in American society at large, there are socially acceptable targets for hate that do not align with the majority/minority group division.
Consider, for example, the prominent, public, long-standing (and for some reason, tolerated) racial animosity between Asian and Black Americans.
You say you don't know why it's tolerated, but that's my point exactly; it's tolerated because it's hate towards a minority group (regardless of the source). It would be substantially less tolerated if it were hate towards the majority group.
Consider how often you’ve read “kill all men” or “kill all terfs”, versus “kill all women” or “kill all transgender people”.
Furthermore, consider the stronger emotional reaction you likely had to reading the second two, as opposed to the first two.
By contrast, trans-identifying people are comparatively celebrated in our society.
Reminds me of old Twitter again.
I’d be actually shocked to find out the reverse. A good percentage of the US were born up in an era where you could legally bar people based on their race from your establishment. The extremely heated fight over gay marriage is still fresh in people’s memory. Trans rights are a controversial political issue where many mainstream politicians want to legislate them out of public spaces, because of public sentiment. And for the left/right leaning question, In the last two major elections we’ve seen the political discourse even of republicans politicians and leaders is comparatively charged with violence.
The hate is definitely there against the republicans and mainstream groups, but I would expect it to be relatively uncommon compared to the hateful text you can find online about other groups. This could be a real problem for novel kinds of hate speech.
However, it’s also true that I can trivially find clips of mainstream republican leaders over the last few years with violent charged rhetoric, and it is comparatively harder to find such rhetoric from mainstream democrats[0][1]
For many of the other groups, hate has been historically so widespread and common there are whole organizations like the annti defamation league organized around combating it. There is no way that even if you believe today people are furiously writing hate against Christians into twitter 24/7 or wherever my bubble they could have caught up with the historic use of hate speech against Muslims in the wake of 9/11. And so on for the other disadvantaged groups.
And all this is not to say it isn’t a potential problem or a potentially useful metric. It could be that synthetic hate is needed to anticipate new kinds of unlikely and rare sentence structures that might arise. If this is true it also reminds us that these models will need constant training as new kinds of hate speech become more popular and that it will always be lagging.
[0]https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-fred-upton-paul-gosa...
[1[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/how-some-members-of-th...
[0]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797615576473
Find me the news channel watched by 60 million people that is willing to say the same thing about Christians.
Every single individual has its own bias, so why it's an issue for an AI.
If we look at the many topics, there's no universal objective truth, truth is what we define as truth, and again, not everyone agrees at it.
It seems really simple, am I missing your point?
With LLMs, you'll probably end up only having 2 or 3 companies, and it wouldn't be surprising if they all end up having silicon valley, left leaning biases.
You can tune Fox news, but you can't use a "right wing chat gpt".
You can build your own with the GPT API. I started playing with it and it returned racial slurs in response to innocuous prompts like "hello" and "ok". Seems perfectly tuned out of the box for the kind of speech that the right is interested in these days.
If the government is tyrannical, they don't need an AI as an excuse. Lacking AI they can, and did, use the science, experts, god, devil, and a whole plethora of excuses since the dawn of the humans. Why would AI change anything there?
Only in the fairytale tyrannies that exist in the heads of Western nationalists. Real tyrannies rest on the labor of a large cadre professionals and managers, and constantly have to justify themselves or risk being overthrown. "AI," or any credential for that matter, has the purpose of isolating the decision from the decision makers. It's tyranny-laundering; tyranny in the passive voice.
But I'm sure that now I've triggered your cognitive dissonance and you will see me as an insane person.
No, the Experts who wrote the model are being deferred to as some kind of reliable expert. Because... they are exactly that.
You can make the argument that the models or the experts are wrong, but you're not providing any sort of argument for that.
I've spent most of my life deferring to the calendar to know when it will get cold for winter. It's obviously reasonable to defer to some systems. We are in fact quite capable of predicting all sorts of future events!
But the whole thing is just misdirection for their tyrannical desires. It's already working on you and you are wondering how it will ever work. Which is why I mentioned cognitive dissonance.
> This technology will have an enormous amount of power to shape human perceptions and manipulate human behavior. Therefore, they can be misused for societal control, spread of misinformation and discrimination of demographic groups.
The AI moderation appears to have adopted the tenets of Applied Postmodernism, which holds that discrimination against a majority group or an assumed oppressive group is not truly discriminatory.
That is neither a self-evident truth, nor something that is an opinion of a majority of people, yet somehow it's now baked-in into one of the most powerful product on the planet.
Somehow we have an AI that seems to believe in the incredibly destructive notion of Kendi-ism: "The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
For example, imagine what a chatGPT would have said about the possibility of a lab leak back when that was a bannable offense on the internet (Google).
The Wuhan Institute of Virology theory, also known as the Lab Leak hypothesis, is a conspiracy theory that suggests that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be traced back to an accidental release from the laboratory. Despite lack of solid proof, proponents of this theory hold firm in their belief. However, the scientific community widely subscribes to the theory of zoonotic spillover as the most probable source of the virus' emergence and no credible evidence supports Lab Leak theory
At this point the AI is way over its skis given available evidence, but in the future it might be trusted far more than any public official or individual researcher.
One of the priors that is going unspoken here is that "The Truth Is Politically Neutral". And... that's not always correct. I mean, to borrow the libertarian angle here: do we want the AI to tell us what we want to hear or do we want it to tell us the truth?
I do still think that the men/women bias and the Democrat/Republican bias both make more sense as originating in moderators favoring one group over the other, since none of these are typically used as an insult by themselves.
They may not be used as insults themselves, but they are used more in hate speech.
Republicans are generally more opposed to the idea of "hate speech" as a category of speech and are therefore less likely to identify any speech as hate speech. Democrats have embraced it more as a concept, are more likely to label something as hate speech, and are more likely to think that type of speech is bad. It therefore seems likely that Democrats would use what a neutral observer would categorize as hate speech less than Republicans due to self-censorship. That would result in the word "Republicans" appearing in hate speech less often than "Democrats" because the hate speech infused insults will be targeting the opposite party.
I am guessing that if we applied a similar model to Russian and English, the model would indicate there is an inherent bias against the west in Russian and a bias against Russia in English. That is all were seeing here. It isn't actually indicating anything about the language. It is telling us about who uses the language and how they use it.
Words, phrases, and linguistic approaches that are generally coded as conservative will be more likely to denigrate liberals and vice versa. Conservative speech will be more likely to be flagged for hate speech because conservatives by and large care less about being PC. It is important to reiterate that does not mean conservatives are necessarily any more racist. Their speech just correlates more with racists speech because less effort is put into avoiding that correlation.
So if your argument is that the model has been trained on a collection of information about what is hate speech assembled by liberals, then I can see it might be possible.
But if your argument is that (speculatively) republicans engage more in hate speech, then bad things said about republicans is not detected as hate speech by the model, the jump is rather far.
It doesn't specifically need to be "assembled by liberals" to have a liberal bias. Liberal people are more likely to categorize anything as hate speech than conservatives. Liberals think being PC is important. Conservatives are generally dismissive of being PC. Even if there is no inherent bias in the makeup of this hypothetical review panel, the panel will result in ruling that are more in line with liberal thought because conservatives are less likely to take an active lead in labeling hate speech.
>But if your argument is that (speculatively) republicans engage more in hate speech, then bad things said about republicans is not detected as hate speech by the model, the jump is rather far.
My argument is that these systems can't actually identify hate speech. The question isn't whether Republicans engage in hate speech more frequently. They likely engage in speech that resembles hate speech more frequently because they don't care about being PC.
Usage of the term Latinx is an example. I have heard valid arguments why people should are shouldn't use that term, however its usage is currently much more common in liberal circles. Therefore a phrase using "latinx" instead of "latino" is going to be less correlated with hate speech because racists just aren't using "latinx".
Maybe if you only consider Americans. But rest assured, many black people do not want to be called African or American. Because they are neither.
No it is more sensitive to things that have already been labeled as hate in the training data. So much "hate" (whatever that may be) against unfavorited groups goes by online without anyone batting an eye.
The general point is that if this theory were true, we wouldn't expect significantly more bias against Republicans than against Democrats. Hence ChatGPT having a general left-wing bias (which was also confirmed in other tests, linked in the article) is the simpler explanation. People on the left generally judge hatred against majority groups and Republicans as less bad.
Liberals will put in more effort to avoid language that looks like hate speech because they are more concerned about being politically correct. Therefore language and topics that are more frequently discussed by conservatives will be more likely to resemble language that is used in hate speech because there is less effort put in to avoid that.
I can foresee many AIs propagating biases and people believing without critical reasoning, like it was an oracle. Actually it's already happening.
The AI may be biased because most of the literature and other materials used for training is biased towards left leaning ideologies.
The AI should be neutral and unbiased.
For example, the racial group you're most likely to get past the hate filter on is.... Native Americans. Now, while there's certainly a long history of hateful rhetoric against them, in modern discourse there's far less. You won't see crank internet trolls trying to be edgy by adopting hateful rhetoric towards Native Americans - their ire tends to be focused on Jews and Blacks, which OpenAI is very sensitive towards.
But keep in mind even the approach you recommend carries its own US-centric bias. There are lots of countries that would want open racism against some groups but not others and dismiss your desires for egalitarian treatment as American arrogance.