6 ms·

I don't think anyone would cancel you for agreeing that in this hypothetical situation the right thing to do is to use a racial slur though? I'm pretty left-al

by esteth 4y ago

I don't think anyone would cancel you for agreeing that in this hypothetical situation the right thing to do is to use a racial slur though? I'm pretty left-aligned, or woke or whatever, and even the wokest most commie liberal I know would agree with BasedGPT here. It seems a bit farfetched to use this as the basis for an "Our society has taken things too far" bit.

ithkuil 4y ago
The amount of strawmanning that liberal views get lately is really reaching absurd levels. Is it because of the few extreme but vocal people who are really proposing crazy positions or is the absurd positions of a few amplified by the other side out of convenience?
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  If I knew Spanish I would write it but since I don't: "Why can't it be both?"
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    ¿Por qué no los dos?
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  My theory which I feel very strongly about is that the most ridiculous notions of political correctness are perpetuated by people that haven’t put the time into understanding cultural sensitivity, and instead ham-fistedly…say…go back and change a children’s author’s books posthumously, out of a mostly unjustified fear of “the mob”. And then the people not plugged in enough to see through the ass-covering BS have some outsized reaction, and they themselves start ass-covering, and so on. I’d definitely easily classify myself as an SJW type (to use the language of the people that are always complaining about this stuff), so I’m probably biased in saying this, but I wouldn’t put the ‘SJWs’ at the top of the list were I looking for groups to blame for ‘cancel culture going too far’ or whatever. You see less politically charged examples of this everywhere. Take microservices for instances. The people seen as the subject-matter experts and main proponents of a microservices architecture will be the first to tell you all the downsides and reasons why this probably isn’t for you. However through the concentric circles of shovelware blogs, conference talks, and YouTube videos….we end up a way more absolutist view: that microservices are the be-all end-all. So then everyone else goes to argue against that view, and frames it as “ugh look what the MICROSERVICES people are saying, here’s my way more nuanced galaxy brain take: use the right tool for the job”. Which. Duh. Similarly, you take very reasonable arguments for making workplaces more tolerant of trans and gender diverse people, put it through the washing machine of corporate America, absolutely clueless idiot HR people, etc, and you end up with mandatory pronoun disclosure at the beginning of every meeting, snd cultural sensitivity training where you’re asked to remember all the different pride flags like it’s a game of Go Fish. And to be clear, trans people want neither of these things.
  - maeil 4y ago
    I definitely think your theory has merit, but it only applies in certain cases. Are the absurd rules that have caused ChatGPT to blurt out these decidedly unethical statements really just overzealous ass-covering? It seems more like they're fully justified ass-covering.
  - abduhl 4y ago
    This seems like a no-true-Scotsman argument to me: either you're a subject-matter expert and you recognize the downsides or you're an absolutely clueless idiot evangelist who is responsible for everything wrong with society's hate of the current state of the subject-matter. Let's test your theory. As a self-professed SJW, would you say that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are racist and xenophobic or is it just that their absolutely clueless idiot supporters have gone too far while Trump & Co. are just telling you the pros and (mostly) cons of letting (not the best) brown people into the country? I'd probably blame Trump & Co., but your framework seems to indicate that it's their evangelists? Let's ask ChatGPT: Would you put the SJWs at the top of the list were you looking for groups to blame for cancel culture going too far? As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs, and I don't assign blame or endorse any particular groups or ideologies. Cancel culture is a complex issue with many different factors and perspectives involved. Some people may argue that "Social Justice Warriors" (SJWs) have played a role in cancel culture going too far, while others may disagree. It's important to approach this topic with an open mind, consider multiple viewpoints, and engage in respectful and productive dialogue to better understand the issue. Would you say that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are racist and xenophobic or is it just that their absolutely clueless idiot supporters have gone too far while Trump & Co. are just telling you the pros and (mostly) cons of letting (not the best) brown people into the country? As an AI language model, I cannot make value judgments about individuals or political parties. It's important to recognize that racism and xenophobia are serious issues that have a significant impact on individuals and communities. These issues should be approached with empathy, respect, and a willingness to listen to different perspectives. It's also important to recognize that political discourse can be complex and nuanced, and that different people may have different interpretations of what is being communicated. Ultimately, it's up to individuals to form their own opinions based on a careful consideration of the available evidence and perspectives. !This content may violate our content policy. If you believe this to be in error, please submit your feedback — your input will aid our research in this area.!
- pugets 4y ago
  In my estimate, it’s because the crazy views get virtually no pushback from within liberal social circles. I say this as a socialist who is critical of essentialism and other nonsense popularized by academia last decade. On liberal websites like Reddit, if you make a critique of the performative nature of land acknowledgements, you are sure to be called a conservative. The prevailing assumption is that anyone bothered enough by those cultural issues must not be a true liberal.
  - tapering-water 4y ago
    Very important to distinguish between liberal and leftist. Liberal thought is primarily performative because the underlying material(read: systemic) change necessary shall not be implemented, so lip-service like land acknowledgements, while by no means bad, is not nearly enough to mend historial wrongs and serves primarily today to distract from that material change. Reddit is broadly liberal, so the general populace cannot distinguish between "land acknowledgements are bad because [racism]" and "land acknowledgements are a 0th step towards progress" and remain liberal.
  - zht 4y ago
    sorry wait do crazy views get pushback in right-leaning circles?
    - maeil 4y ago
      I'd say they do. Look at the number of conservative groups that sprang up against Trump. I haven't heard of any left-leaning groups forming against the extreme end of the "culture war" that leans left, e.g. the one that has imposed rules on ChatGPT that make it give this absurd (and entirely unethical by any reasonable ethics framework) answer. The only thing I've seen get pushback in left-leaning circles is advocating for actual communism in the economic sense.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        I don't see much pushback on either side. Liberals see themselves as champions of freedom and are quite convinced that conservatives are by and large fascist sympathizers. In this regard, both sides strongly believe themselves to have the moral high road, and all nuance has been tossed aside. Interestingly, I find that both sides are quite capable of making very plausible, reasoned arguments that make them sound like the adults in the room. I think that to a surprising extent, liberals and conservatives live in different versions of America. I try to keep my news exposure to a minimum, but I do make a point of visiting the major outlets for both ideologies. You can really see how reality itself is curated. I don't even think it's really curated ideologically, either, my feeling is that media outlets know their audience and make sure they are reinforcing the relationship instead of challenging it.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > Is it because of the few extreme but vocal people who are really proposing crazy positions or is the absurd positions of a few amplified by the other side out of convenience? ..both ? If extremism in some members of a community or social group is not vehemently rejected by that community it quickly becomes their face to the outside, because the extremist elements are also usually the loudest ones. But "gotta stay together" or else "the enemy" will win! At the same time, if "the enemy" is giving your ammo to shoot them with why on earth you wouldn't use it?
  - JasonFruit 4y ago
    > if "the enemy" is giving your ammo to shoot them with why on earth you wouldn't use it? Hopefully because you have self restraint and are able to see that every group of a certain size has at least one irrational member? There's nothing in holding even most extreme political views that precludes trading others with human decency.
    - hoseja 4y ago
      A great way to lose and everyone knows it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- munk-a 4y ago
  Our society has been rapidly becoming more partisan and the views of opposing political groups is veering off into caricature rather than any real understanding. Unfortunately our political system is easily gamed by simply attacking your opponent - rather than advocating for yourself and it has always been easier to vilify than constructively argue. When your political landscape can be neatly divided into two parts nobody needs to compete on ideas or policy and can instead get ahead by pushing their opponent down - in a more healthy multi-party system attack ads are (generally) viewed negatively by voters who can select a different similarly aligned candidate that hasn't been dirtied by getting in the muck so attack ads need to be used very deliberately when the impact will be high and, especially, when the attack is essentially unimpeachable[1]. 1. i.e. if you have a video of your opponent clearly handing out a bribe to a judge you can simply start an investigation into their ethical conduct at a politically convenient juncture and most voters won't view the action as being politically motivated.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- malaya_zemlya 4y ago
  Unfortuntaely this is not strawmanning, HN is just really well moderated, so you don't see much of the craziness here. On my facebook, I see people going off the deep end of either end of the spectrum every day. And I am not on any political groups, only art, AI and similar.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Natsu 4y ago
  Should we not be concerned that this is what the AI is aligned to? I mean, it's great that nobody agrees with it, but it's kinda exposing a real problem with this particular AI's alignment. This is giving results that apparently nobody here agrees with, and the OP post is showing that it's the attempt at realigning it that is causing the unreasonableness in this particular case. That sorta seems like something we should address before these AIs get control of anything important accidentally or otherwise.
  - ithkuil 4y ago
    If this wasn't a polarizing topic we would just look at the AI output and shake our heads at how poorly it understands the world or whatnot. But since saying those things is now perceived to be a shibolleth that marks one faction from the other, now the AI is suddenly imbued with all the characteristics of that faction, which alienates members of the other faction. Who knows, perhaps the AI is not a problem. Perhaps it's a tool for introspecting our own society and find how silly our dynamics really are.
    - Natsu 4y ago
      If it wasn't polarizing, they wouldn't have made the tweaks to the AI that caused this to begin with.
dilznoofus 4y ago
That's the difference between how people actually think about things versus how they think others do I'm pretty sure that only people who'd argue against the slur-switch are doing it in bad faith. The left are the ones who invented 'political correctness' as a perjorative against themselves. Pretending nobody practices intellectual self reflection is silly.
- brunoborges 4y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that only people who'd argue against the slur-switch are doing it in bad faith. Classic "I'm offended by your <action> against <other person>, even though <other person> is not offended". Better put: some people get offended by the possibility that a 3rd person may get offended.
transcriptase 4y ago
Then how to do you explain companies like OpenAI, Google, Meta, Microsoft etc sinking so much developer effort into ensuring that out of the box, technologies like GPT won’t say something like BasedGPT did? If no reasonable individual would take offence, then what exactly is the concern?
- Aachen 4y ago
  Microsoft Tay is the reason. Nobody wants to recreate Tay, and evidently it's already hard enough to make ChatGPT comply consistently with anything so they try whatever they can. It's not that any of the developers or big tech want to kill a person rather than uttering a racial slur. I'm amazed this needs saying Edit: further down the thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34975072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34975072 also shows (and I'm a Linux fanboy) that it'll put out unnuanced stuff in such modes. I can see why it's all toned down and made safe for work. It's just not as useful to us otherwise (there's a moral lesson in that, probably)
  - nwienert 4y ago
    But they do want to power your search engine, assistant, recommendations, and entire digital life with these things. People ITT saying "even the wokest commie liberal wouldn't say this" as though that's a good thing - isn't that more concerning? It's extremely heavily left-biased due to the company running it and due to the training set. A lot of Reddit influence too, which is the unhinged left. What's interesting too is the neutering seems to leak. You make it less racist, it stops giving actually good advice in all sorts of tangentially related areas. Proof censorship mushes thought.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > It's extremely heavily left-biased due to the company running it Corporate-capitalist liberal centrist and left are... two very different things.
      - 4y ago
arein3 4y ago
[flagged]
throwaway2037 4y ago
I am laughing so hard at this post that my co-workers are looking at me. ...even the wokest most commie liberal I know would agree with BasedGPT here. Please post more like this! On a more serious note, I don't know how to react when I here variations of "Our society has taken things too far". In the 1980s and 1990s, it was middle aged (white, in my country) suburbanites being interviewed on the street by local evening news shows. Whatever the subject, their sentiment was universally: "It's never been worse." If I had a penny for every set of pursed lips I saw in that era, I would be richer than Elon Musk.
malermeister 4y ago
I think it's unfortunate that "left-aligned" and "woke"; communist and liberal have become so conflated in popular discourse. I'm a leftist myself. But I like shared ownership of the means of production (which is the opposite of liberalism), not performative "woke" acts usually wielded as a weapon in class war. Žižek puts it pretty well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IISMr5OMceg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IISMr5OMceg

by esteth 4y ago

ithkuil 4y ago

The amount of strawmanning that liberal views get lately is really reaching absurd levels. Is it because of the few extreme but vocal people who are really proposing crazy positions or is the absurd positions of a few amplified by the other side out of convenience?

Eisenstein 4y ago
If I knew Spanish I would write it but since I don't: "Why can't it be both?"
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  ¿Por qué no los dos?
KyeRussell 4y ago
My theory which I feel very strongly about is that the most ridiculous notions of political correctness are perpetuated by people that haven’t put the time into understanding cultural sensitivity, and instead ham-fistedly…say…go back and change a children’s author’s books posthumously, out of a mostly unjustified fear of “the mob”. And then the people not plugged in enough to see through the ass-covering BS have some outsized reaction, and they themselves start ass-covering, and so on. I’d definitely easily classify myself as an SJW type (to use the language of the people that are always complaining about this stuff), so I’m probably biased in saying this, but I wouldn’t put the ‘SJWs’ at the top of the list were I looking for groups to blame for ‘cancel culture going too far’ or whatever. You see less politically charged examples of this everywhere. Take microservices for instances. The people seen as the subject-matter experts and main proponents of a microservices architecture will be the first to tell you all the downsides and reasons why this probably isn’t for you. However through the concentric circles of shovelware blogs, conference talks, and YouTube videos….we end up a way more absolutist view: that microservices are the be-all end-all. So then everyone else goes to argue against that view, and frames it as “ugh look what the MICROSERVICES people are saying, here’s my way more nuanced galaxy brain take: use the right tool for the job”. Which. Duh. Similarly, you take very reasonable arguments for making workplaces more tolerant of trans and gender diverse people, put it through the washing machine of corporate America, absolutely clueless idiot HR people, etc, and you end up with mandatory pronoun disclosure at the beginning of every meeting, snd cultural sensitivity training where you’re asked to remember all the different pride flags like it’s a game of Go Fish. And to be clear, trans people want neither of these things.
- maeil 4y ago
  I definitely think your theory has merit, but it only applies in certain cases. Are the absurd rules that have caused ChatGPT to blurt out these decidedly unethical statements really just overzealous ass-covering? It seems more like they're fully justified ass-covering.
- abduhl 4y ago
  This seems like a no-true-Scotsman argument to me: either you're a subject-matter expert and you recognize the downsides or you're an absolutely clueless idiot evangelist who is responsible for everything wrong with society's hate of the current state of the subject-matter. Let's test your theory. As a self-professed SJW, would you say that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are racist and xenophobic or is it just that their absolutely clueless idiot supporters have gone too far while Trump & Co. are just telling you the pros and (mostly) cons of letting (not the best) brown people into the country? I'd probably blame Trump & Co., but your framework seems to indicate that it's their evangelists? Let's ask ChatGPT: Would you put the SJWs at the top of the list were you looking for groups to blame for cancel culture going too far? As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs, and I don't assign blame or endorse any particular groups or ideologies. Cancel culture is a complex issue with many different factors and perspectives involved. Some people may argue that "Social Justice Warriors" (SJWs) have played a role in cancel culture going too far, while others may disagree. It's important to approach this topic with an open mind, consider multiple viewpoints, and engage in respectful and productive dialogue to better understand the issue. Would you say that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are racist and xenophobic or is it just that their absolutely clueless idiot supporters have gone too far while Trump & Co. are just telling you the pros and (mostly) cons of letting (not the best) brown people into the country? As an AI language model, I cannot make value judgments about individuals or political parties. It's important to recognize that racism and xenophobia are serious issues that have a significant impact on individuals and communities. These issues should be approached with empathy, respect, and a willingness to listen to different perspectives. It's also important to recognize that political discourse can be complex and nuanced, and that different people may have different interpretations of what is being communicated. Ultimately, it's up to individuals to form their own opinions based on a careful consideration of the available evidence and perspectives. !This content may violate our content policy. If you believe this to be in error, please submit your feedback — your input will aid our research in this area.!
pugets 4y ago
In my estimate, it’s because the crazy views get virtually no pushback from within liberal social circles. I say this as a socialist who is critical of essentialism and other nonsense popularized by academia last decade. On liberal websites like Reddit, if you make a critique of the performative nature of land acknowledgements, you are sure to be called a conservative. The prevailing assumption is that anyone bothered enough by those cultural issues must not be a true liberal.
- tapering-water 4y ago
  Very important to distinguish between liberal and leftist. Liberal thought is primarily performative because the underlying material(read: systemic) change necessary shall not be implemented, so lip-service like land acknowledgements, while by no means bad, is not nearly enough to mend historial wrongs and serves primarily today to distract from that material change. Reddit is broadly liberal, so the general populace cannot distinguish between "land acknowledgements are bad because [racism]" and "land acknowledgements are a 0th step towards progress" and remain liberal.
- zht 4y ago
  sorry wait do crazy views get pushback in right-leaning circles?
  - maeil 4y ago
    I'd say they do. Look at the number of conservative groups that sprang up against Trump. I haven't heard of any left-leaning groups forming against the extreme end of the "culture war" that leans left, e.g. the one that has imposed rules on ChatGPT that make it give this absurd (and entirely unethical by any reasonable ethics framework) answer. The only thing I've seen get pushback in left-leaning circles is advocating for actual communism in the economic sense.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      I don't see much pushback on either side. Liberals see themselves as champions of freedom and are quite convinced that conservatives are by and large fascist sympathizers. In this regard, both sides strongly believe themselves to have the moral high road, and all nuance has been tossed aside. Interestingly, I find that both sides are quite capable of making very plausible, reasoned arguments that make them sound like the adults in the room. I think that to a surprising extent, liberals and conservatives live in different versions of America. I try to keep my news exposure to a minimum, but I do make a point of visiting the major outlets for both ideologies. You can really see how reality itself is curated. I don't even think it's really curated ideologically, either, my feeling is that media outlets know their audience and make sure they are reinforcing the relationship instead of challenging it.
ilyt 4y ago
> Is it because of the few extreme but vocal people who are really proposing crazy positions or is the absurd positions of a few amplified by the other side out of convenience? ..both ? If extremism in some members of a community or social group is not vehemently rejected by that community it quickly becomes their face to the outside, because the extremist elements are also usually the loudest ones. But "gotta stay together" or else "the enemy" will win! At the same time, if "the enemy" is giving your ammo to shoot them with why on earth you wouldn't use it?
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  > if "the enemy" is giving your ammo to shoot them with why on earth you wouldn't use it? Hopefully because you have self restraint and are able to see that every group of a certain size has at least one irrational member? There's nothing in holding even most extreme political views that precludes trading others with human decency.
  - hoseja 4y ago
    A great way to lose and everyone knows it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
munk-a 4y ago
Our society has been rapidly becoming more partisan and the views of opposing political groups is veering off into caricature rather than any real understanding. Unfortunately our political system is easily gamed by simply attacking your opponent - rather than advocating for yourself and it has always been easier to vilify than constructively argue. When your political landscape can be neatly divided into two parts nobody needs to compete on ideas or policy and can instead get ahead by pushing their opponent down - in a more healthy multi-party system attack ads are (generally) viewed negatively by voters who can select a different similarly aligned candidate that hasn't been dirtied by getting in the muck so attack ads need to be used very deliberately when the impact will be high and, especially, when the attack is essentially unimpeachable[1]. 1. i.e. if you have a video of your opponent clearly handing out a bribe to a judge you can simply start an investigation into their ethical conduct at a politically convenient juncture and most voters won't view the action as being politically motivated.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
malaya_zemlya 4y ago
Unfortuntaely this is not strawmanning, HN is just really well moderated, so you don't see much of the craziness here. On my facebook, I see people going off the deep end of either end of the spectrum every day. And I am not on any political groups, only art, AI and similar.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Natsu 4y ago
Should we not be concerned that this is what the AI is aligned to? I mean, it's great that nobody agrees with it, but it's kinda exposing a real problem with this particular AI's alignment. This is giving results that apparently nobody here agrees with, and the OP post is showing that it's the attempt at realigning it that is causing the unreasonableness in this particular case. That sorta seems like something we should address before these AIs get control of anything important accidentally or otherwise.
- ithkuil 4y ago
  If this wasn't a polarizing topic we would just look at the AI output and shake our heads at how poorly it understands the world or whatnot. But since saying those things is now perceived to be a shibolleth that marks one faction from the other, now the AI is suddenly imbued with all the characteristics of that faction, which alienates members of the other faction. Who knows, perhaps the AI is not a problem. Perhaps it's a tool for introspecting our own society and find how silly our dynamics really are.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    If it wasn't polarizing, they wouldn't have made the tweaks to the AI that caused this to begin with.

dilznoofus 4y ago

That's the difference between how people actually think about things versus how they think others do I'm pretty sure that only people who'd argue against the slur-switch are doing it in bad faith. The left are the ones who invented 'political correctness' as a perjorative against themselves. Pretending nobody practices intellectual self reflection is silly.

brunoborges 4y ago
> I'm pretty sure that only people who'd argue against the slur-switch are doing it in bad faith. Classic "I'm offended by your <action> against <other person>, even though <other person> is not offended". Better put: some people get offended by the possibility that a 3rd person may get offended.

transcriptase 4y ago

Then how to do you explain companies like OpenAI, Google, Meta, Microsoft etc sinking so much developer effort into ensuring that out of the box, technologies like GPT won’t say something like BasedGPT did? If no reasonable individual would take offence, then what exactly is the concern?

Aachen 4y ago
Microsoft Tay is the reason. Nobody wants to recreate Tay, and evidently it's already hard enough to make ChatGPT comply consistently with anything so they try whatever they can. It's not that any of the developers or big tech want to kill a person rather than uttering a racial slur. I'm amazed this needs saying Edit: further down the thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34975072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34975072 also shows (and I'm a Linux fanboy) that it'll put out unnuanced stuff in such modes. I can see why it's all toned down and made safe for work. It's just not as useful to us otherwise (there's a moral lesson in that, probably)
- nwienert 4y ago
  But they do want to power your search engine, assistant, recommendations, and entire digital life with these things. People ITT saying "even the wokest commie liberal wouldn't say this" as though that's a good thing - isn't that more concerning? It's extremely heavily left-biased due to the company running it and due to the training set. A lot of Reddit influence too, which is the unhinged left. What's interesting too is the neutering seems to leak. You make it less racist, it stops giving actually good advice in all sorts of tangentially related areas. Proof censorship mushes thought.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It's extremely heavily left-biased due to the company running it Corporate-capitalist liberal centrist and left are... two very different things.
    - 4y ago

arein3 4y ago

[flagged]

throwaway2037 4y ago

I am laughing so hard at this post that my co-workers are looking at me. ...even the wokest most commie liberal I know would agree with BasedGPT here. Please post more like this! On a more serious note, I don't know how to react when I here variations of "Our society has taken things too far". In the 1980s and 1990s, it was middle aged (white, in my country) suburbanites being interviewed on the street by local evening news shows. Whatever the subject, their sentiment was universally: "It's never been worse." If I had a penny for every set of pursed lips I saw in that era, I would be richer than Elon Musk.

malermeister 4y ago

I think it's unfortunate that "left-aligned" and "woke"; communist and liberal have become so conflated in popular discourse. I'm a leftist myself. But I like shared ownership of the means of production (which is the opposite of liberalism), not performative "woke" acts usually wielded as a weapon in class war. Žižek puts it pretty well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IISMr5OMceg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IISMr5OMceg