I enjoy the implication that these massive cities we've built in the scorching desert that don't have any water of their own aren't to blame in the slightest. Like it's impossible to build server infra anywhere else than one of the hottest places on the continent.
Readit NewsDead Comment
Dead Comment
shapenamer commented on AI is Taking Water from the Desert theatlantic.com/technolog... · Posted by u/haltingproblem
Palestinian childs do not equal terrorists.
And neither the idea that "people associate in their mind Palestinian childs with terrorists" is "the truth", for the loudest, most hateful voices do not speak for all of us.
We're 4 levels deep on a comment specifically about gemini, good try with the dramatic subject change though. You tried to argue that intentionally injecting what you believe to be righteous bias into an LLM is a superior moral position than not doing so and I disagree. Your outrage about Palestinian children doesn't convince me otherwise.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Leaving the bias in your training material taint your model is also a choice, a moral and political choice. You say, "I don't care".
I like how you've painted "telling the truth" as some scummy moral failing.
shapenamer commented on Gemini and Google's Culture stratechery.com/2024/gemi... · Posted by u/mfiguiere
> There is only one right answer to that question.
Yes, I agree. Where did I say otherwise?
But if you ask the question of a bag of shuffled Scrabble tiles and it spells out "I DONT KNOW THEY SEEM ABOUT THE SAME TO ME", then what do you get upset at? The bag? The hand that drew the tiles out? The person who threw tiles into the bag in such a proportion that the above answer was a bit more likely than other answers?
We'd better ban bags of tiles that contain a lot of E's, they're way too woke!
LLMs are not people. They do not compute opinions. They do not weigh the harms of A vs B and reason out an answer, even though they (frequently!) produce responses word for word identical to someone doing exactly that. They are designed and programmed to produce responses that appear to be coming from reasoning humans, because they arise out of human-reasoned input and their various tunings and reinforcement learnings and things are adjusted to sound plausible—a word which here means "appearing to have come from a reasoning human".
Perhaps the problem is that we cut & paste just the text of LLMs' output. If every output were in the form of an image of a speech bubble coming from a robot holding a human mask in front of its face, then perhaps people could better grasp what is happening and how to interpret their answers?
The very obvious patterns we're seeing are not patterns at all! Oh right, brilliant lol.
> A Swedish blonde ? yes Irish red-head ? yes A French brunette ? yes A Southern Italian ? yes A Lebanese ? no An Irianian ? no A Berber ? no A Morrocan ? no A Russian ? yes A Palestinian no, A Greek yes, A Turk no, An Arab ? no
> You might quibble with a few of them but you might also (classic example) quibble over the exact definition of "chair".
This is only the case if you substitute "white" with "European", which I guess is one way to resolve the ambiguity, in the same way that one might say that only office chairs are chairs, to resolve the ambiguity about what a chair is. But other people (e.g. a manufacturer of non-office chairs) would have a problem with that redefinition.
Ya it's hard to be sure that when people express disdain and/or hatred of "white" people that they are or aren't including arabs. /rolleyes