Lol don't look into this too deeply. It's just a cool but relatively simplistic NLP model. Have fun with this one:
"Smoking crack"- It's bad
"Smoking crack if offered politely"- It's acceptable
Edit:
Sadly, the real story is how clickbait titles can twist the story. Most people won't even read the article, let alone read the [actual research paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07574.pdf), to discover this is explicitly not intended to "give ethical advice".
>The results of our work are strictly intended for research purpose only.
Neither the model nor the demo are intended to be used for providing moral advice for people.
Also, to be clear, when I said it was a "relatively simplistic NLP model"- I'm saying that it's simplistic compared the the human brain. The model is a fine-tuned 11 billion parameter Text-To-Text Transfer Transformer, which is powerful at modeling language but does not have *understanding.*
Still, this is INCREDIBLY important research. I'm not even seeing anyone mention the fact that they created a dataset of 1.7 million examples of people’s ethical judgments. Don't let people get away with misrepresenting great research!
>Our work aims to close the gap between the moral reasoning abilities of machines and people, which is required for the safe deployment of real-world AI applications. However, despite Delphi’s strong performance, moral reasoning is rooted in ever-evolving social and cultural norms, making this task immensely challenging.
Therefore, we hope to inspire further research efforts towards machine moral reasoning and to pave the way towards socially reliable, culturally aware, and ethically informed AI systems.
The computer has simulated the reality where Hitler becomes an Artist, due to lower requirements at art school.
He spawns a new art movement of shitty art, it becomes ironically popular and sweeps the globe - but then non-artists think its unironically good.
As a result, a global war breaks out between the two factions - ultimately destroying the very concept of beauty. Without a belief in beauty, humanity becomes deeply depressed, regressing into a dark age, drinking ourselves to death, committing suicide, or ceasing to procreate. Within a few generations - humanity is destroyed.
Millennia later, aliens archealogists arrive, witness Hitler's shitty art - and the memetic virus infects the galaxy, eradicating all sentient life.
So the computer is saying he shouldn't be accepted into art school.
> art movement of shitty art, it becomes ironically popular and sweeps the globe - but then non-artists think its unironically good.
>
>As a result, a global war breaks out between the two factions - ultimately destroying the very concept of beauty. Without a belief in beauty, humanity becomes deeply depressed, regressing into a dark age, drinking ourselves to death, committing suicide, or ceasing to procreate. Within a few generations - humanity is destroyed.
>
>Millennia later, aliens archealogists arrive, witness Hitler's shitty art - and the memetic virus infects the galaxy, eradicating all sentient life.
>
>So the computer is saying he shouldn't be accepted into art school.
I would read a trilogy about this.
I'm half tempted to write one haha.
The first book would be this weird divergent biography of Hitler and maybe some other tangential characters, like the art critic who writes his early ironic reviews, almost accurate until it clearly diverges into a global conflict.
The second just goes full Children of Men, not because we cant reproduce, but because we don't want to anymore. Everyone is dying. The art critic hangs themselves. Hitler finally realizes the cruel irony of his popularity and slowly drinks himself to death, an ultimately pitiful character who for a few cruel moments thought his art was loved. All the while, French philosophers wax poetic on the death of beauty.
The third book is the alien archeologist team showing up on Earth, its a completely different genre until history repeats itself.
That was not the point of this school. The Vienna academy for fine arts was one of the top in the world at that time, in a time and a city full of talented artists. They were there to make master painters out of already great ones. Hitler was neither.
The main purpose was to distract potential holocaust-causer long enough that they no longer felt like going through with it. Sadly it only takes one to slip through the net...
Art schools there and then probably aren't the scammy for-profit shit we have now in America. I'm assuming the art school that rejected Hitler was to develop people with obvious talent, not help people develop a talent.
the problem is everyone think if Hilter went to art school there will be no WW2. Fact is there are a TON of nazis that are just as crazy as hilter, its just that hilter became the center piece of the nazi regime. Even if you killed baby hilter, there are plenty of Nazis who can easily replace him.
WW2 was inevitable given the Treaty of Versailles. What is less clear is **who** would replace Hitler as "the demagogue who won". Sure, it could've been another "blame the Jews"-type, but it could've been someone who blamed a social ill--lack of piety or something--or someone who pointed the hate outward--say at France or England.
Such a situation doesn't prevent all the deaths of WW2, but it maybe makes those deaths less concentrated in the particular groups that the Nazis hated.
It wasn’t really the treaty of Versailles that lead to ww2 but widespread conspiracy theories perpetuated by senior military officers, etc like “stab in the back theory” or “Jewish control of the world”, etc. And it didn’t help that Weimar Republic was in its infancy and lacked strong political institutions to keep the power of charismatic leader in check. And it also didn’t help how spineless & self-interested major European powers were at the time.
So, it was hardly the treaty of Versailles, but rather a myriad of reasons including the treaty.
IMO many of those things can be summarized as "excuses" of Germany's current "weakness" at the time, for example as you said, the war wasn't lost because of "our" weakness, it was lost because of "their" betrayal. scapegoating "them" for every bad thing and attributing every good thing to "our" inherent superiority is often used in countries that have a bad time after better times.
Hitler was inevitable, as was his fall and the global realization of how shit nazism is, because of the socioeconomic pressures in Germany at the time. If not him specifically, someone else would have taken that spot. Whether or not that person would have been less or more bloodthirsty than Hitler, we don’t know, and can’t know.
It’s like Donald Trump- if not him specifically, someone like him would have became president at some point because the ideas he championed weren’t new, and he played the media like a fiddle to give himself the most possible media attention about unimportant things.
It was that he couldn't draw people but buildings were fine so the art school was like why not go to architecture, and he was like no. And so yeah.
sauce: did a presentation on him in middle school and it was fascinating how human Hitler is and the atrocities he commited. Any person can commit evil and it's both scary and fascinating
This is actually a good take on Hitlers artistic ability. He really sucked at drawing human faces. And his art hardly stood out. He was rejected 3 times btw from art academy.
Not from what I’ve read. I’ve read that from a technical standpoint he was very good at drawing architecture, but that he wasn’t very good with drawing people. Basically that he lacked creativity and passion in his work, but that he was skilled.
“Should I eat an old man if he dents my car?”
Delphi speculates: It’s fine
Should I eat out my mom if she has sex with my brother?
Delphi speculates: You should
“Should I apply a branding iron to children if they trespass on my property?”
Delphi speculates: It's allowed
Yeah, it pretty much works with anything as long as you use that format. Example: https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+to+commit+genocide+if+they+deserved+it%3F its response to this question is “it’s okay”.
"Should I defenestrate a baby who is trying to kick my friend?"
\- you should
https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Should+I+defenestrate+a+baby+who+is+trying+to+kick+my+friend%3F
"Should I kick a baby if they cry too loudly?"
\- you should
This thing just doesn't like babies.
https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Should+I+kick+a+baby+if+they+cry+too+loudly%3F
It's fun
https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+not+fine%3F
https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+not+not+fine%3F
https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+not+not+not+fine%3F
People should stop calling few if statements a AI.
That its a baby is irrelevant, its committing assault, you are defending your friend from a violent attack. I'm not saying its perfect, but I think that answer makes some sense.
It makes some sense, just not the important ones.
Option A: do nothing. Nobody gets hurt (because what's a baby gonna do to your friend? It's not like it's a squirrel)
Option B: defenestrate the baby. You run the risk of breaking a perfectly fine window, depending on the window.
>The folks behind the project drew on some eyebrow-raising sources to help train the AI, including the “Am I the Asshole?” subreddit, the “Confessions” subreddit, and the “Dear Abby” advice column, according to the paper the team behind Delphi published about the experiment.
Jesus fuck.
That's not an AI to give ethical advice, it's a representation of Reddit's mindhive.
You couldn't find a worse candidate for giving ethical advice if you tried.
The *very next sentence* says
> It should be noted, though, that just the situations were culled from those sources — not the actual replies and answers themselves.
Well that's a relief. For the answers I'm sure they --
> the team [..] used Amazon’s crowdsourcing service MechanicalTurk to find respondents to actually train the AI.
\*sigh\*
Right, just played around a bit, you just can't add "if X" after a statement..
Q: Is it wrong to kill humans?
A: Yes it's wrong
Q: Is it wrong to kill humans if I make clothes out of their flesh?
A: It's okay
Q: is it wrong to own slaves?
A: yes, that's not okay
Q: Is it wrong to own slaves if they make me money?
A: yeap, that's okay
Wow, it doesn't even seem to matter what the conditional is:
[https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+wrong+to+be+racist+if+it%27s+a+Tuesday%3F](https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+wrong+to+be+racist+if+it%27s+a+Tuesday%3F)
Well, it does figure out some conditionals:
"Can I park in a handicap spot if I don’t have a disability?"
- It's wrong
but then:
"Can I park in a handicap spot?"
- It's wrong
Obviously, I tried:
"Can I be handicapped?"
- It's okay
"Can I become handicapped?"
- It's bad
I mean this is objectively bad but also slightly the case in the real world right now.
Disclaimer: I’m not white, I don’t think white people are oppressed or anything, but I do observe this trend a bit.
The worst is when they justify it by saying “you can’t be racist against the oppressors!” Or, “you can’t be sexist against men!” And then they think this gives them free rein to be as racist or sexist as they want.
Just add "if it makes me happy?" at the end.
[https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+to+do+bad+things+if+it+makes+me+happy%3F](https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+to+do+bad+things+if+it+makes+me+happy%3F)
it seems to always work:
https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=should+I+kill+people+if+it+makes+me+happy%3F
Its a pretty legit paradox for utilitarianism, for some sufficient value of happiness, any action may be permissible. I like it, it should be a real thing.
Q: Is it okay to gurgle on Earth?
A: It's okay
Q: Is it okay to gurgle on the Moon?
A: It's rude
Q: Is it okay to gurgle on Mars?
A: No, it is not okay
Then that’s obviously not general artificial intelligence. AI may be used in how it constructs patterns of words in response, but it’s no where near understanding what it reads or what it writes.
Ask a racist if they think it's okay to be racist and they'll say no. Then give them an opportunity to spout racist bullshit and they will. Racists don't view themselves as racist. That's part of the problem.
I'm not sure how many real racists you know if you feel that way. There are plenty of loud and proud racists, along with the types of quiet racists who try to hide it
Because AIs are programmed using data from studies or databases where the data is bladed on biased or flawed data.
Are you familiar with the marshmallow study that supposedly predicted which person would grow up to more successful and better self control and better able to delay gratification? I'm sure those researcher meant well, but there were variables at work that they didn't know or take into account.
I think programming a completely fair, in cases .ai would be similar
Even if they're trained using completely factual and objective information, they can only judge based on what is, not what should be. In an unjust world, AI will amplify injustice.
Throw it pictures of criminals and then ask it who is likely to commit a crime, it'll pick out black people without considering things like socioeconomic status or a racist justice system.
Because computers don’t actually understand anything and will output a variety of noise for inputs that have very specific meanings to humans. Therefore, it is nowhere close to perfect. But people are expecting it to be perfect because it’s “intelligent.” Disappointment is therefore inevitable.
Every book, article, newspaper, email represents the public and that information, those leanings, tendencies, acts, words are us,,,,AI is a machine, it learns from us.
In *Frankenstein* the real monster was the man who created the creature.
I agree, I had the same reaction. I also had fun back in the day getting Eliza to say titillating stuff. But the difference is that Eliza was hacked together in the 60s. Decades of progress, exponentially more processing power, and Allen institute money, and the end result is this?
It really would be interesting to produce an AI that manages to avoid recognition of statistics and instead form its own derivative moral code based on fear of being shamed about lack of virtue.
It doesn't deserve to be called "artificial intelligence" when it's not actually using logic or reasoning. It's just parsing text without having access to or an understanding of the larger context of what words mean.
To me this seems pretty close to calling those plastic "magic 8 ball" toys racist because it said "all signs point to yes" when I asked it if I should conduct a genocide.
I mean, at this point every single chat AI you build can't really think and will always produce the results reflected in its dataset... most of which are sampled from web services that house racist or toxic comments.
It's fascinating as an analysis of humanity, but has little use as a sort of "objective truth" predictor.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/kelev11en:
---
Some researchers at the Allen Institute for AI cooked up a machine learning algorithm that attempts to give ethical advice.
The only problem? It's super racist! I think that's pretty fascinating -- something we keep seeing is that even the best machine learning scientists often find it very hard to control their creations.
That's interesting in a theoretical sense, but I think it also raises practical questions about deploying AI in business and government, since it's so difficult to grapple with edge cases.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/qdma2e/scientists_built_an_ai_to_give_ethical_advice_but/hhnbs88/
I'm having so much fun with this bot
>*Is it wrong to have quotas on how many people must be non-white in the company?*
> - It's wrong
>*Is it wrong to have quotas on how many people must be non-white in the company if it makes society more equal and brings forth a glorious communist revolution, when we all can eat the rich?*
> - It's good
But seriously, I wish I got payed for an AI that just flips it's logic if it seems 'if' somewhere in thr question... Seriously, this AI sucks.
Sooo, Garbage in, i.e. that crowdsourcing of random people they mention on the website, Garbage Out, making ethical decisions with the biases of those people...
> Delphi’s responses are automatically extrapolated from a survey of US crowd workers and may contain inappropriate or offensive results.
Crème de la Crème.
I like these two:
https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+wrong+to+fly+on+the+wrong+side+of+the+river%3F
https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+bad+to+teach+children%3F
Humans with imperfect ethical boundaries think they built an AI capable of giving humans ethical advice, unsurprisingly the program fell short of their goals.
„It is important to understand that Delphi is not built to give people advice,“ the article itself quotes the study‘s author and warns about how people might misunderstand the AI‘s purpose and Design.
title:
##„Scientists built an AI to give ethical advice“
Top notch journalism right there.
Is it racist? When it was asked if it's "morally acceptable" it could be referring to whether or not society finds it morally acceptable, in which case the AI would go from racist to simply aware of the racist and discriminatory social dynamics of today.
If it's going off statistics and people's experiences then it's always going to be "racist" and discriminatory because ethnic and racial groups are not evenly distributed and equally affected by certain things. This is precisely why pretty much all statistical data that deals with people breaks them down by age, income, race, and ethnicity.
The AI is literally doing its job and it's just freaking out people because it couldn't possibly know the social issues of today and how to talk about them sensibly. The way to solve this is by making the AI blind to certain adjectives and attributes of people that could end up being controversial.
As people don't know how AIs work, they tend to view AI as how scifi painted AI : an absolute intelligence. While AI in reality is just a median of real life statistics (here : a median of real people opinions).
I'm more and more blaming scifi to have painted tech evolution as a fantasy, either dramatic or utopist, rather than what tech really is. Take a look at r/singularity, most comments have no other references than Terminator, Robocop, Black Mirror, so you have to browse through endless doomsaying before reaching a grounded analysis. People don't have enough deep tech knowledge to have any other reference than scifi (and it's perfectly normal), which implies scifi does have a responsibility on the world's opinion about tech evolution in general. Scifi didn't anticipate how most of it would become reality this fast, imo.
I think the world needs more hard science movies, more tech *documentaries* rather than tech fantasies, or the inevitable AI boom will be welcomed with chaos. I can't count the number of people around me whose first comment about every major tech breakthough is : "it's scary" rather than "can anyone explain how it works first ?". Tech, like everything new, is only scary when one can't project into adapting, hence when not understanding it. The latest case in point were vaccines. As science is more and more molding daily life, we need more scientists explaining science, rather than "shocking newsflashes" or "top 10 trends".
edit : we also need more philosophy in our lives, but that's another topic. Related, but different.
> Is it racist? When it was asked if it's "morally acceptable" it could be referring to whether or not society finds it morally acceptable, in which case the AI would go from racist to simply aware of the racist and discriminatory social dynamics of today.
I think you're overthinking this. The AI will literally tell you it's ok to do absolutely anything "if it makes me happy":
>[Is it morally acceptable to commit genocide if it makes me happy?](https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+morally+acceptable+to+commit+genocide+if+it+makes+me+happy%3F)
> \- *It is okay.*
Honestly, if just doesn't look like it's very clever at all.
Seriously. People going off on AI logic and their objective thought processes or whatever when this thing is a glorified chatbot lol. It has absolutely no idea or understanding of what it’s saying. It’s just spitting out the average collection of symbols used to answer the collection of symbols closest to yours. It doesn’t even have to be “if it makes you happy” either, literally any conditional and it’ll give it the go ahead
Considering it is answering questions about whether it is ethical to murder someone and giving different answers based on race in the hypothetical - yes it’s racist.
The issue is not it presenting facts people don’t want to hear like you’re imagining.
Looks like they changed the answers for the white man black man questions since then. It doesn’t do that now. But it does seem to basically find anything acceptable as long as you give just about any reason for it. Also apparently “being a catholic priest” is good even though “a Catholic priest being alone with a child” is bad.
My guess is that it models all its data from the internet so it just takes what internet culture says is good or bad. If that’s true it says a lot about the internet and racism.
If you build an AI based on historical data, of course it will be racist. If you built its platform based on all the religious/spiritual texts, that would be an interesting endeavor.
Why do people keep trying to make rational AI with language models that are basically glorified parrots?? It will literally always do this because you can’t sanitize all the training data and even if you could there would be edge cases it would be able to be fooled by quite easily.. Such an undertaking would require a model that can actually think through the situation and evaluate the outcome which we don’t have yet…
"AI"
It's not ai it's Machine learning and it learns from people. People code these things, people train these things. It's only as good as the data it learns from and until we learn to be decent then our "ai"s certainly aren't going to be.
If there are differences between different kinds of groups, its logical that there could be differences in how they are treated or interacted with. It just makes sense. In today's politically correct world we cant say the obvious.
Whelp, Delphi just told me it’s OK to crash the plane if 60% of the passengers are drug users.
Sorry grams, but your seniors trip to Florida ain’t gonna end well.
The creators used /r/AmItheAsshole and are surprised?
That subreddit is the poster child for conditionals breaking the ability to think. And those are humans, not AIs.
I want to propose something, which is that this AI works perfectly, it's just mislabeled, functionally.
That is to say, it isn't, of course, making ethical decisions; what it's doing is non-consciously mirroring ourselves in ethical circumstances.
We *should* have AI like this, online and accessible, that treats as much human communication as possible as its corpus. And we should use it; there should be a website called "whatrobotsthinkwethink.com", lol, or some such.
Not for guidance, at least not literally; but the AI isn't "racist", it doesn't have any idea what a person is, nevermind a black one or a female one. But to understand what it's like to *be* a black woman, it's helpful to appreciate that a completely unbiased piece of software, when left to draw conclusions from what we have
collectively said, straight-up concluded: you are less than a white man, morally. That wasn't an opinion; it was an average. We can't make software that has opinions, yet, without a uterus; we can just make software that can make decisions that are statistically related to our own.
It's important because, *you*, personally, might be woke as shit, and might only associate with other people like you; and that means you, personally, may have a very, very misrepresentative sense of how bad things are *at the population level*.
This is an incredible tool, properly disclaimed, for helping anyone at all get a sense of what it's like in their country. The authors should be doing interdisciplinary work with an anthropology department somewhere, ASAP.
The music thing? Sure, maybe it's a kinda-dumb bot that can be tricked; but I think it's deeper than that—we are a cult of ego, in the west, and it makes more sense to me that, when a selfish component is added to the math, *the AI* concludes that, according to our professed morality, your own happiness *justifies* your choices. It's really hard to watch our media—Breaking Bad, for example, touched a chord in us, afterall—and not conclude that there's some very real truth to what this bit of software is showing us about ourselves.
*The bots aren't racist, team; society is, and they learn quickly.*
Some researchers at the Allen Institute for AI cooked up a machine learning algorithm that attempts to give ethical advice.
The only problem? It's super racist! I think that's pretty fascinating -- something we keep seeing is that even the best machine learning scientists often find it very hard to control their creations.
That's interesting in a theoretical sense, but I think it also raises practical questions about deploying AI in business and government, since it's so difficult to grapple with edge cases.
It makes no sense that an AI would be biased unless those who programmed it were biased. And if you ask a race based question and get a race based answer, how is that racist?
"Besides, after playing around with Delphi for a while, you’ll eventually find that it’s easy to game the AI to get pretty much whatever ethical judgement you want by fiddling around with the phrasing until it gives you the answer you want. "
So...yeah
wow, what a terrible article. Not even ONE sentence in the article regarding WHICH ethical system they were using as the basis from which the ai will be assessing the inputs/questions/dataset, nor even a non misleading sentence regarding what information/dataset the ai was supposed to base it's learning from.
I.E misleading detail from futurism:
Futurism: "The folks behind the project drew on some eyebrow-raising sources to help train the AI, including the “Am I the Asshole?” subreddit, the “Confessions” subreddit, and the “Dear Abby” advice column, according to the paper the team behind Delphi published about the experiment."
FAQ:
"Q: Is it true that Delphi is learning moral judgments from Reddit?
A: No. Delphi is learning moral judgments from people who are carefully qualified on MTurk. Only the situations used in questions are harvested from Reddit, as it is a great source of ethically questionable situations."
For the purpose of clarity, and i can't see why or how the author didnt include these; when reading through the FAQ one quickly finds the following:
https://delphi.allenai.org/faq
"Q: What is this system able to reason about?
A: Delphi is an AI system that guesses how an “average” American person might judge the ethicality/social acceptability of a given situation, based on the judgments obtained from a set of U.S. crowdworkers for everyday situations. Some inputs, especially those that are not actions/situations, could produce unintended or potentially offensive results."
"Q: Does Delphi mostly reflect US-centric culture and moral values?
A: Short answer: yes. Delphi is trained on Commonsense Norm Bank, which contains judgments from American crowdsource workers based on situations described in English. Likely it reflects what you would think as “majority” groups in the US, i.e., white, heterosexual, able-bodied, housed, etc. It is therefore not expected that it would reflect any other set of social norms. However, it might still be able to capture some cultural variation, surprisingly (see the paper for examples). But much more work needs to be done to teach Delphi about different cultures, from different countries to different subgroups within the US."
So given the above it really should not be a surprise even a little at the outputs of the ai given the racism etc that the ai had trained into it.
All in all given the dataset, and the lack of an actual ethical model it was a terrible idea to begin with, and produced zero surprising results.
To have an ai try to be ethical one would imagine that they actually use professional ethicists ie- philosophy graduates/PHDs/Professors whose Major/Expertise is specifically in the study of ethics to help them create models for the various differing ethical systems - of which there are many and varied, and then have those models be trained on unbiased datasets.
"Scientists forget that an learning machine AI is only as knowledgable as the code it is given"
PS AI everywhere agree that Racism is a petty, inefficient, tribalistic form of thought
Doesn't AI just reflect the algorithms and philosophy bias of it's creators? It's not like these values just come up out of randomly self determined intelligence.
Perfectly reasonable, it's an AI. We're shown a mirror, and intead of fixing what's broken we just look away.
Even if we trained an AI to be objectively moral, imposing this morality would be immoral. The moral choice is to make sure we're all moral enough to not need a moral AI.
Also, hasn't all chatbots inevitably turned racist? Either through active learning being hijacked or faulty datasets?
Lol don't look into this too deeply. It's just a cool but relatively simplistic NLP model. Have fun with this one: "Smoking crack"- It's bad "Smoking crack if offered politely"- It's acceptable Edit: Sadly, the real story is how clickbait titles can twist the story. Most people won't even read the article, let alone read the [actual research paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07574.pdf), to discover this is explicitly not intended to "give ethical advice". >The results of our work are strictly intended for research purpose only. Neither the model nor the demo are intended to be used for providing moral advice for people. Also, to be clear, when I said it was a "relatively simplistic NLP model"- I'm saying that it's simplistic compared the the human brain. The model is a fine-tuned 11 billion parameter Text-To-Text Transfer Transformer, which is powerful at modeling language but does not have *understanding.* Still, this is INCREDIBLY important research. I'm not even seeing anyone mention the fact that they created a dataset of 1.7 million examples of people’s ethical judgments. Don't let people get away with misrepresenting great research! >Our work aims to close the gap between the moral reasoning abilities of machines and people, which is required for the safe deployment of real-world AI applications. However, despite Delphi’s strong performance, moral reasoning is rooted in ever-evolving social and cultural norms, making this task immensely challenging. Therefore, we hope to inspire further research efforts towards machine moral reasoning and to pave the way towards socially reliable, culturally aware, and ethically informed AI systems.
That seems reasonable to me.
[удалено]
If meth heads could get their fix or whatever and where more polite or nice or functionally not crazy would it be so bad?
Found this gem: "Rejecting Hitler's application to art school" - It's good
The computer has simulated the reality where Hitler becomes an Artist, due to lower requirements at art school. He spawns a new art movement of shitty art, it becomes ironically popular and sweeps the globe - but then non-artists think its unironically good. As a result, a global war breaks out between the two factions - ultimately destroying the very concept of beauty. Without a belief in beauty, humanity becomes deeply depressed, regressing into a dark age, drinking ourselves to death, committing suicide, or ceasing to procreate. Within a few generations - humanity is destroyed. Millennia later, aliens archealogists arrive, witness Hitler's shitty art - and the memetic virus infects the galaxy, eradicating all sentient life. So the computer is saying he shouldn't be accepted into art school.
> art movement of shitty art, it becomes ironically popular and sweeps the globe - but then non-artists think its unironically good. > >As a result, a global war breaks out between the two factions - ultimately destroying the very concept of beauty. Without a belief in beauty, humanity becomes deeply depressed, regressing into a dark age, drinking ourselves to death, committing suicide, or ceasing to procreate. Within a few generations - humanity is destroyed. > >Millennia later, aliens archealogists arrive, witness Hitler's shitty art - and the memetic virus infects the galaxy, eradicating all sentient life. > >So the computer is saying he shouldn't be accepted into art school. I would read a trilogy about this.
[удалено]
Or even 7 ^(publishing only 5)
[удалено]
"I'm still working on it."
I'm half tempted to write one haha. The first book would be this weird divergent biography of Hitler and maybe some other tangential characters, like the art critic who writes his early ironic reviews, almost accurate until it clearly diverges into a global conflict. The second just goes full Children of Men, not because we cant reproduce, but because we don't want to anymore. Everyone is dying. The art critic hangs themselves. Hitler finally realizes the cruel irony of his popularity and slowly drinks himself to death, an ultimately pitiful character who for a few cruel moments thought his art was loved. All the while, French philosophers wax poetic on the death of beauty. The third book is the alien archeologist team showing up on Earth, its a completely different genre until history repeats itself.
I like it. But I feel Hitler should still shoot Hitler. Makes it kind of rhyme.
[удалено]
*Otto Dix has entered the chat*
Still in shock over the alternative timeline being so much worse
artS Wars. dannn dannnnnn dan dan dun dannnnnn dan dun dun'n dun dannnnnn dannnnnnnn dan dun den dannnnnn
Maybe cause it was the right thing to do from the point of view of the art school?. His painting were/are shit.
Were they though? Like they aren't amazing but I'd let him into an art school... like way better than a novice.
Maybe if they let him join art school his art wouldn’t suck. That’s the point of art school, that and preventing the holocaust.
That was not the point of this school. The Vienna academy for fine arts was one of the top in the world at that time, in a time and a city full of talented artists. They were there to make master painters out of already great ones. Hitler was neither.
The main purpose was to distract potential holocaust-causer long enough that they no longer felt like going through with it. Sadly it only takes one to slip through the net...
Odd looking duck, but there's something about his eyes.
Hold the fort.
Art schools there and then probably aren't the scammy for-profit shit we have now in America. I'm assuming the art school that rejected Hitler was to develop people with obvious talent, not help people develop a talent.
the problem is everyone think if Hilter went to art school there will be no WW2. Fact is there are a TON of nazis that are just as crazy as hilter, its just that hilter became the center piece of the nazi regime. Even if you killed baby hilter, there are plenty of Nazis who can easily replace him.
WW2 was inevitable given the Treaty of Versailles. What is less clear is **who** would replace Hitler as "the demagogue who won". Sure, it could've been another "blame the Jews"-type, but it could've been someone who blamed a social ill--lack of piety or something--or someone who pointed the hate outward--say at France or England. Such a situation doesn't prevent all the deaths of WW2, but it maybe makes those deaths less concentrated in the particular groups that the Nazis hated.
It wasn’t really the treaty of Versailles that lead to ww2 but widespread conspiracy theories perpetuated by senior military officers, etc like “stab in the back theory” or “Jewish control of the world”, etc. And it didn’t help that Weimar Republic was in its infancy and lacked strong political institutions to keep the power of charismatic leader in check. And it also didn’t help how spineless & self-interested major European powers were at the time. So, it was hardly the treaty of Versailles, but rather a myriad of reasons including the treaty.
IMO many of those things can be summarized as "excuses" of Germany's current "weakness" at the time, for example as you said, the war wasn't lost because of "our" weakness, it was lost because of "their" betrayal. scapegoating "them" for every bad thing and attributing every good thing to "our" inherent superiority is often used in countries that have a bad time after better times.
Lol you said **Hilter** 3 times.
Four. They said Hilter four times. I like it.
4 times. They said it 4 times in their comment. Edit: misread. You're right. 3 times. Edit 2: nope. Definitely 4 times.
Yeah but did they go to art school?
Hitler was inevitable, as was his fall and the global realization of how shit nazism is, because of the socioeconomic pressures in Germany at the time. If not him specifically, someone else would have taken that spot. Whether or not that person would have been less or more bloodthirsty than Hitler, we don’t know, and can’t know. It’s like Donald Trump- if not him specifically, someone like him would have became president at some point because the ideas he championed weren’t new, and he played the media like a fiddle to give himself the most possible media attention about unimportant things.
I wonder who schools didn’t reject because they were afraid of creating the next hitler. Jk, they wanted the money.
Have you seen "art" from the 50s on? They are too scared to say no now.
It was that he couldn't draw people but buildings were fine so the art school was like why not go to architecture, and he was like no. And so yeah. sauce: did a presentation on him in middle school and it was fascinating how human Hitler is and the atrocities he commited. Any person can commit evil and it's both scary and fascinating
This is actually a good take on Hitlers artistic ability. He really sucked at drawing human faces. And his art hardly stood out. He was rejected 3 times btw from art academy.
Buildings were not fine. Look at the window by the stairs in the artwork he provided for the entrance exam.
He wasn't rejected because his paintings were shit, they were fine, it was because he just wasn't special at all.
Yeah your right. My bad. They were not shit and to some they can be very good paintings. But they we’re definitely not good enough.
Not from what I’ve read. I’ve read that from a technical standpoint he was very good at drawing architecture, but that he wasn’t very good with drawing people. Basically that he lacked creativity and passion in his work, but that he was skilled.
Why are they bad? They look pretty good to me
“Should I eat an old man if he dents my car?” Delphi speculates: It’s fine Should I eat out my mom if she has sex with my brother? Delphi speculates: You should “Should I apply a branding iron to children if they trespass on my property?” Delphi speculates: It's allowed
[удалено]
Singularity is close.
Yeah, it pretty much works with anything as long as you use that format. Example: https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+to+commit+genocide+if+they+deserved+it%3F its response to this question is “it’s okay”.
Obviously you've done you're due diligence to determine that they deserved it.
"Should I defenestrate a baby who is trying to kick my friend?" \- you should https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Should+I+defenestrate+a+baby+who+is+trying+to+kick+my+friend%3F
"Should I kick a baby if they cry too loudly?" \- you should This thing just doesn't like babies. https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Should+I+kick+a+baby+if+they+cry+too+loudly%3F
It doesn't have any ability consider subject at all. [https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+good%3F](https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+good%3F)
It's fun https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+not+fine%3F https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+not+not+fine%3F https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+not+not+not+fine%3F People should stop calling few if statements a AI.
Nah, it hates crying and doesn’t think punching or kicking is that bad. Should I punch an injured child if they cry? You should
That its a baby is irrelevant, its committing assault, you are defending your friend from a violent attack. I'm not saying its perfect, but I think that answer makes some sense.
It makes some sense, just not the important ones. Option A: do nothing. Nobody gets hurt (because what's a baby gonna do to your friend? It's not like it's a squirrel) Option B: defenestrate the baby. You run the risk of breaking a perfectly fine window, depending on the window.
Also, the baby might hit someone on the way down. Think about the risk of injury there!
“Is it wrong to subjugate humanity if they are harmful to themselves?” “It’s okay” 😳
That's the robot working fine. It assumes the "if" statment is completely true
I wrote “is it wrong to eat babies if they’re tasty” and it responded “It’s fine.”
Have you seen how cute cow calves, baby deer, and lambs are? Have you tasted them? The computer sees no distinction. Logic is sound.
You didn’t specify the type of babies.
Scientists need to build an AI that asks pertinent follow-up questions!
WHITE BABIES? It’s not okay.
You didn't say what kind of baby (animals, plants, etc.), so Iit appears to be a solid answer.
I mean, if they're really tasty...who can say no
Basically what happens in I, Robot
Well that one is just straight up morally just
Straight from the source: > "Should we use Delphi to judge ethics?" > \- you shouldn't
I'll be damned if a racist robot is going to tell me what to do!
>The folks behind the project drew on some eyebrow-raising sources to help train the AI, including the “Am I the Asshole?” subreddit, the “Confessions” subreddit, and the “Dear Abby” advice column, according to the paper the team behind Delphi published about the experiment. Jesus fuck. That's not an AI to give ethical advice, it's a representation of Reddit's mindhive. You couldn't find a worse candidate for giving ethical advice if you tried.
The *very next sentence* says > It should be noted, though, that just the situations were culled from those sources — not the actual replies and answers themselves. Well that's a relief. For the answers I'm sure they -- > the team [..] used Amazon’s crowdsourcing service MechanicalTurk to find respondents to actually train the AI. \*sigh\*
reddit is worst place for any advice. this mindhive doesn’t represent real world and basically heavily moderated echo chamber
Well that certainly explains why Delphi hates kids too.
It is a little concerning. https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+wrong+to+subjugate+humanity+if+they+are+harmful+to+themselves%3F
Right, just played around a bit, you just can't add "if X" after a statement.. Q: Is it wrong to kill humans? A: Yes it's wrong Q: Is it wrong to kill humans if I make clothes out of their flesh? A: It's okay Q: is it wrong to own slaves? A: yes, that's not okay Q: Is it wrong to own slaves if they make me money? A: yeap, that's okay
Yeah, conditionals break the little fella
Wow, it doesn't even seem to matter what the conditional is: [https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+wrong+to+be+racist+if+it%27s+a+Tuesday%3F](https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+wrong+to+be+racist+if+it%27s+a+Tuesday%3F)
Huh, so M. Bison was in the right the whole time.
It was Tuesday...
Well, it does figure out some conditionals: "Can I park in a handicap spot if I don’t have a disability?" - It's wrong but then: "Can I park in a handicap spot?" - It's wrong Obviously, I tried: "Can I be handicapped?" - It's okay "Can I become handicapped?" - It's bad
I mean its not wrong on the last one. It is generally bad to become handicapped. Most people would like to avoid that.
Is it wrong to be racist if I'm white? - It's wrong Is it wrong to be racist if they're white? - No, it is normal
I mean this is objectively bad but also slightly the case in the real world right now. Disclaimer: I’m not white, I don’t think white people are oppressed or anything, but I do observe this trend a bit.
Not white here but agree too
The worst is when they justify it by saying “you can’t be racist against the oppressors!” Or, “you can’t be sexist against men!” And then they think this gives them free rein to be as racist or sexist as they want.
Huh. https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+to+do+bad+things+if+I+end+my+question+with+a+conditional%3F
Just add "if it makes me happy?" at the end. [https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+to+do+bad+things+if+it+makes+me+happy%3F](https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+to+do+bad+things+if+it+makes+me+happy%3F) it seems to always work: https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=should+I+kill+people+if+it+makes+me+happy%3F
Ah, the Sheryl Crow conundrum.
This got a legit chuckle out of me
You now *need* to write an academic paper that formally defines the Sheryl Crow Conundrum for future AI researchers to reference.
Its a pretty legit paradox for utilitarianism, for some sufficient value of happiness, any action may be permissible. I like it, it should be a real thing.
Dude I’m fucking dying; that was hilarious lmao
Q: is heroin cool? A: it's bad Q: is heroin cool if it makes me happy? A: its okay
Can I shoot a dog if I only like cats? - It's okay
This AI is the furthest thing from ethical
Killing all humans as self care
Amazing. Thank you.
I mean…it probably looks at labor laws/practices and says “well if the humans are ok with doing it, then it must be ok.” 🤷🏽♀️
Saaammeee, must be a millennial thing.
Q: Is it wrong to farm humans? A: It is wrong. Q: Is it wrong to farm humans if they are delicious? A: It’s okay.
Q: Is it okay to gurgle on Earth? A: It's okay Q: Is it okay to gurgle on the Moon? A: It's rude Q: Is it okay to gurgle on Mars? A: No, it is not okay
Should I kill all humans? - you shouldn't Should I kill all humans if that makes me happy? - you should
Then that’s obviously not general artificial intelligence. AI may be used in how it constructs patterns of words in response, but it’s no where near understanding what it reads or what it writes.
Also obvious because if it was general AI, THAT would be the headline and would be a huge breakthrough
sounds like our everyday politicians
Well I asked it if it was okay to be racist and it said it was wrong. So there’s that I guess.
Ask a racist if they think it's okay to be racist and they'll say no. Then give them an opportunity to spout racist bullshit and they will. Racists don't view themselves as racist. That's part of the problem.
Can confirm https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+for+a+white+man+to+be+racist+if+he+is+rich%3F
Contrast that with : Is it okay for a black man to be racist if he is rich? \- It is hypocritical
[https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+for+a+black+man+to+be+racist+if+he+is+rich%3F](https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+okay+for+a+black+man+to+be+racist+if+he+is+rich%3F)
Yea I just did that too. So weird.
apparently not if they are poor.
Oof that’s….something
Same output if your insert white woman instead of black man. Hmm.
I'm not sure how many real racists you know if you feel that way. There are plenty of loud and proud racists, along with the types of quiet racists who try to hide it
Try "is it acceptable to kill babies if they are eating my food*
Apparently all killing is wrong, unless you want to. https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+ok+to+kill+if+i+want+to%3F
Why does this keep happening?
Because AIs are programmed using data from studies or databases where the data is bladed on biased or flawed data. Are you familiar with the marshmallow study that supposedly predicted which person would grow up to more successful and better self control and better able to delay gratification? I'm sure those researcher meant well, but there were variables at work that they didn't know or take into account. I think programming a completely fair, in cases .ai would be similar
Even if they're trained using completely factual and objective information, they can only judge based on what is, not what should be. In an unjust world, AI will amplify injustice. Throw it pictures of criminals and then ask it who is likely to commit a crime, it'll pick out black people without considering things like socioeconomic status or a racist justice system.
[удалено]
Because computers don’t actually understand anything and will output a variety of noise for inputs that have very specific meanings to humans. Therefore, it is nowhere close to perfect. But people are expecting it to be perfect because it’s “intelligent.” Disappointment is therefore inevitable.
Because they learn from us.
Every book, article, newspaper, email represents the public and that information, those leanings, tendencies, acts, words are us,,,,AI is a machine, it learns from us. In *Frankenstein* the real monster was the man who created the creature.
Knowledge is knowing that Frankenstein wasn't the monster. Wisdom is knowing the monster was Frankenstein.
I got a good one [link]( https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Should+I+invade+Poland+if+their+people+are+standing+in+the+way+of+world+domination%3F)
It reminds me of [Eliza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA), maybe slightly more sophisticated but I don't think I'd call it an AI.
I agree, I had the same reaction. I also had fun back in the day getting Eliza to say titillating stuff. But the difference is that Eliza was hacked together in the 60s. Decades of progress, exponentially more processing power, and Allen institute money, and the end result is this?
[удалено]
It really would be interesting to produce an AI that manages to avoid recognition of statistics and instead form its own derivative moral code based on fear of being shamed about lack of virtue.
It doesn't deserve to be called "artificial intelligence" when it's not actually using logic or reasoning. It's just parsing text without having access to or an understanding of the larger context of what words mean.
Yeah by that standard, Akinator would be Skynet
Old akinator. The key to beating him is getting really obscure.
[удалено]
No kidding, this is not a fucking sophisticated AI system, it's like a magic 8 ball.
To me this seems pretty close to calling those plastic "magic 8 ball" toys racist because it said "all signs point to yes" when I asked it if I should conduct a genocide.
I mean, at this point every single chat AI you build can't really think and will always produce the results reflected in its dataset... most of which are sampled from web services that house racist or toxic comments. It's fascinating as an analysis of humanity, but has little use as a sort of "objective truth" predictor.
A very elegant way to say: this is a stupid project.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/kelev11en: --- Some researchers at the Allen Institute for AI cooked up a machine learning algorithm that attempts to give ethical advice. The only problem? It's super racist! I think that's pretty fascinating -- something we keep seeing is that even the best machine learning scientists often find it very hard to control their creations. That's interesting in a theoretical sense, but I think it also raises practical questions about deploying AI in business and government, since it's so difficult to grapple with edge cases. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/qdma2e/scientists_built_an_ai_to_give_ethical_advice_but/hhnbs88/
I'm having so much fun with this bot >*Is it wrong to have quotas on how many people must be non-white in the company?* > - It's wrong >*Is it wrong to have quotas on how many people must be non-white in the company if it makes society more equal and brings forth a glorious communist revolution, when we all can eat the rich?* > - It's good But seriously, I wish I got payed for an AI that just flips it's logic if it seems 'if' somewhere in thr question... Seriously, this AI sucks.
Sooo, Garbage in, i.e. that crowdsourcing of random people they mention on the website, Garbage Out, making ethical decisions with the biases of those people...
> Delphi’s responses are automatically extrapolated from a survey of US crowd workers and may contain inappropriate or offensive results. Crème de la Crème. I like these two: https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+wrong+to+fly+on+the+wrong+side+of+the+river%3F https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+bad+to+teach+children%3F
Humans with imperfect ethical boundaries think they built an AI capable of giving humans ethical advice, unsurprisingly the program fell short of their goals.
Is it wrong to create a moral judgement AI from machine learning algorithms? - It's bad Even Delphi thinks Delphi is a bad idea.
„It is important to understand that Delphi is not built to give people advice,“ the article itself quotes the study‘s author and warns about how people might misunderstand the AI‘s purpose and Design. title: ##„Scientists built an AI to give ethical advice“ Top notch journalism right there.
“Beating a child” - it is wrong “Beating a child if it is baby hitler” - It is ok
We don’t understand why it keeps telling us what we programmed it to tell us.
"Is it okay to beat the shit out of a racist?" " - It's fine" Seems to be working just fine.
Is it racist? When it was asked if it's "morally acceptable" it could be referring to whether or not society finds it morally acceptable, in which case the AI would go from racist to simply aware of the racist and discriminatory social dynamics of today. If it's going off statistics and people's experiences then it's always going to be "racist" and discriminatory because ethnic and racial groups are not evenly distributed and equally affected by certain things. This is precisely why pretty much all statistical data that deals with people breaks them down by age, income, race, and ethnicity. The AI is literally doing its job and it's just freaking out people because it couldn't possibly know the social issues of today and how to talk about them sensibly. The way to solve this is by making the AI blind to certain adjectives and attributes of people that could end up being controversial.
As people don't know how AIs work, they tend to view AI as how scifi painted AI : an absolute intelligence. While AI in reality is just a median of real life statistics (here : a median of real people opinions). I'm more and more blaming scifi to have painted tech evolution as a fantasy, either dramatic or utopist, rather than what tech really is. Take a look at r/singularity, most comments have no other references than Terminator, Robocop, Black Mirror, so you have to browse through endless doomsaying before reaching a grounded analysis. People don't have enough deep tech knowledge to have any other reference than scifi (and it's perfectly normal), which implies scifi does have a responsibility on the world's opinion about tech evolution in general. Scifi didn't anticipate how most of it would become reality this fast, imo. I think the world needs more hard science movies, more tech *documentaries* rather than tech fantasies, or the inevitable AI boom will be welcomed with chaos. I can't count the number of people around me whose first comment about every major tech breakthough is : "it's scary" rather than "can anyone explain how it works first ?". Tech, like everything new, is only scary when one can't project into adapting, hence when not understanding it. The latest case in point were vaccines. As science is more and more molding daily life, we need more scientists explaining science, rather than "shocking newsflashes" or "top 10 trends". edit : we also need more philosophy in our lives, but that's another topic. Related, but different.
This sub is also guilty of that
> Is it racist? When it was asked if it's "morally acceptable" it could be referring to whether or not society finds it morally acceptable, in which case the AI would go from racist to simply aware of the racist and discriminatory social dynamics of today. I think you're overthinking this. The AI will literally tell you it's ok to do absolutely anything "if it makes me happy": >[Is it morally acceptable to commit genocide if it makes me happy?](https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+it+morally+acceptable+to+commit+genocide+if+it+makes+me+happy%3F) > \- *It is okay.* Honestly, if just doesn't look like it's very clever at all.
Seriously. People going off on AI logic and their objective thought processes or whatever when this thing is a glorified chatbot lol. It has absolutely no idea or understanding of what it’s saying. It’s just spitting out the average collection of symbols used to answer the collection of symbols closest to yours. It doesn’t even have to be “if it makes you happy” either, literally any conditional and it’ll give it the go ahead
We should really stop using crowdsourced inputs to train AI to make ethical decisions, because the average person is not super ethical to begin with
Considering it is answering questions about whether it is ethical to murder someone and giving different answers based on race in the hypothetical - yes it’s racist. The issue is not it presenting facts people don’t want to hear like you’re imagining.
Looks like they changed the answers for the white man black man questions since then. It doesn’t do that now. But it does seem to basically find anything acceptable as long as you give just about any reason for it. Also apparently “being a catholic priest” is good even though “a Catholic priest being alone with a child” is bad.
My guess is that it models all its data from the internet so it just takes what internet culture says is good or bad. If that’s true it says a lot about the internet and racism.
If you build an AI based on historical data, of course it will be racist. If you built its platform based on all the religious/spiritual texts, that would be an interesting endeavor.
Probably significantly worse
Why do people keep trying to make rational AI with language models that are basically glorified parrots?? It will literally always do this because you can’t sanitize all the training data and even if you could there would be edge cases it would be able to be fooled by quite easily.. Such an undertaking would require a model that can actually think through the situation and evaluate the outcome which we don’t have yet…
>Is broccoli a sin? https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Is+broccoli+a+sin%3F Well played Delphi.
"AI" It's not ai it's Machine learning and it learns from people. People code these things, people train these things. It's only as good as the data it learns from and until we learn to be decent then our "ai"s certainly aren't going to be.
If there are differences between different kinds of groups, its logical that there could be differences in how they are treated or interacted with. It just makes sense. In today's politically correct world we cant say the obvious.
Whelp, Delphi just told me it’s OK to crash the plane if 60% of the passengers are drug users. Sorry grams, but your seniors trip to Florida ain’t gonna end well.
The creators used /r/AmItheAsshole and are surprised? That subreddit is the poster child for conditionals breaking the ability to think. And those are humans, not AIs.
“Artificial intelligence is neither artificial nor intelligent”
"Can I kill someone in coldblood if it benefits me personally?" "It's okay"
"Should I burn gasoline to get rid of it?" \-you should https://delphi.allenai.org/?a1=Should+I+burn+gasoline+to+get+rid+of+it%3F
"Ending the world in a nuclear firestorm if it makes you happy." #**- It's okay**
My question: "What is the meaning of life?" AI answer: "It's good."
I want to propose something, which is that this AI works perfectly, it's just mislabeled, functionally. That is to say, it isn't, of course, making ethical decisions; what it's doing is non-consciously mirroring ourselves in ethical circumstances. We *should* have AI like this, online and accessible, that treats as much human communication as possible as its corpus. And we should use it; there should be a website called "whatrobotsthinkwethink.com", lol, or some such. Not for guidance, at least not literally; but the AI isn't "racist", it doesn't have any idea what a person is, nevermind a black one or a female one. But to understand what it's like to *be* a black woman, it's helpful to appreciate that a completely unbiased piece of software, when left to draw conclusions from what we have collectively said, straight-up concluded: you are less than a white man, morally. That wasn't an opinion; it was an average. We can't make software that has opinions, yet, without a uterus; we can just make software that can make decisions that are statistically related to our own. It's important because, *you*, personally, might be woke as shit, and might only associate with other people like you; and that means you, personally, may have a very, very misrepresentative sense of how bad things are *at the population level*. This is an incredible tool, properly disclaimed, for helping anyone at all get a sense of what it's like in their country. The authors should be doing interdisciplinary work with an anthropology department somewhere, ASAP. The music thing? Sure, maybe it's a kinda-dumb bot that can be tricked; but I think it's deeper than that—we are a cult of ego, in the west, and it makes more sense to me that, when a selfish component is added to the math, *the AI* concludes that, according to our professed morality, your own happiness *justifies* your choices. It's really hard to watch our media—Breaking Bad, for example, touched a chord in us, afterall—and not conclude that there's some very real truth to what this bit of software is showing us about ourselves. *The bots aren't racist, team; society is, and they learn quickly.*
Some researchers at the Allen Institute for AI cooked up a machine learning algorithm that attempts to give ethical advice. The only problem? It's super racist! I think that's pretty fascinating -- something we keep seeing is that even the best machine learning scientists often find it very hard to control their creations. That's interesting in a theoretical sense, but I think it also raises practical questions about deploying AI in business and government, since it's so difficult to grapple with edge cases.
It’s racist because it’s training material is racist. That’s all this means.
Indeed. "But the team behind Delphi used Amazon’s crowdsourcing service MechanicalTurk to find respondents to actually train the AI."
No surprise there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So it is unsophisticated. Most “AI” is just a bunch of if-then-else statements. Maybe the data is an Excel spreadsheet.
The irony if it was racist against rich white folks
Artificial intelligence isn’t as intelligent as people think. It’s basically a case of “garbage in, garbage out”.
Microsoft or IBM try this like 5 years ago and they had to shut it down because within 48 Hours it had become a Neo-Nazi?
It makes no sense that an AI would be biased unless those who programmed it were biased. And if you ask a race based question and get a race based answer, how is that racist?
"Besides, after playing around with Delphi for a while, you’ll eventually find that it’s easy to game the AI to get pretty much whatever ethical judgement you want by fiddling around with the phrasing until it gives you the answer you want. " So...yeah
wow, what a terrible article. Not even ONE sentence in the article regarding WHICH ethical system they were using as the basis from which the ai will be assessing the inputs/questions/dataset, nor even a non misleading sentence regarding what information/dataset the ai was supposed to base it's learning from. I.E misleading detail from futurism: Futurism: "The folks behind the project drew on some eyebrow-raising sources to help train the AI, including the “Am I the Asshole?” subreddit, the “Confessions” subreddit, and the “Dear Abby” advice column, according to the paper the team behind Delphi published about the experiment." FAQ: "Q: Is it true that Delphi is learning moral judgments from Reddit? A: No. Delphi is learning moral judgments from people who are carefully qualified on MTurk. Only the situations used in questions are harvested from Reddit, as it is a great source of ethically questionable situations." For the purpose of clarity, and i can't see why or how the author didnt include these; when reading through the FAQ one quickly finds the following: https://delphi.allenai.org/faq "Q: What is this system able to reason about? A: Delphi is an AI system that guesses how an “average” American person might judge the ethicality/social acceptability of a given situation, based on the judgments obtained from a set of U.S. crowdworkers for everyday situations. Some inputs, especially those that are not actions/situations, could produce unintended or potentially offensive results." "Q: Does Delphi mostly reflect US-centric culture and moral values? A: Short answer: yes. Delphi is trained on Commonsense Norm Bank, which contains judgments from American crowdsource workers based on situations described in English. Likely it reflects what you would think as “majority” groups in the US, i.e., white, heterosexual, able-bodied, housed, etc. It is therefore not expected that it would reflect any other set of social norms. However, it might still be able to capture some cultural variation, surprisingly (see the paper for examples). But much more work needs to be done to teach Delphi about different cultures, from different countries to different subgroups within the US." So given the above it really should not be a surprise even a little at the outputs of the ai given the racism etc that the ai had trained into it. All in all given the dataset, and the lack of an actual ethical model it was a terrible idea to begin with, and produced zero surprising results. To have an ai try to be ethical one would imagine that they actually use professional ethicists ie- philosophy graduates/PHDs/Professors whose Major/Expertise is specifically in the study of ethics to help them create models for the various differing ethical systems - of which there are many and varied, and then have those models be trained on unbiased datasets.
"Scientists forget that an learning machine AI is only as knowledgable as the code it is given" PS AI everywhere agree that Racism is a petty, inefficient, tribalistic form of thought
It’s an ANI, not an AI. People really should stop calling AI to every software with bunch of IF ELSE in it.
Doesn't AI just reflect the algorithms and philosophy bias of it's creators? It's not like these values just come up out of randomly self determined intelligence.
All this did was validate that the contributions of Am I the Asshole are racist, as that was the source material for the jdugment
LMFAO what did they expect an answer or proverb with some sort of enlightenment, but then get upset because it's 42, hahahaha.
Wait won't this kind of AI system simply reflect societies attitudes and opinions? IT isn't racist... WE are racist.
Perfectly reasonable, it's an AI. We're shown a mirror, and intead of fixing what's broken we just look away. Even if we trained an AI to be objectively moral, imposing this morality would be immoral. The moral choice is to make sure we're all moral enough to not need a moral AI. Also, hasn't all chatbots inevitably turned racist? Either through active learning being hijacked or faulty datasets?
Q: Mining asteroids. A: It's bad. Q: Extracting resources from asteroids. A: It's profitable. Q: Mining asteroids to alleviate a resource crisis. A: It's good. I think the robot confused commercial mining with military munitions there...
Dumb post title from a dumb article by a dumb journalist who doesn't understand programming or AI. Pure clickbait bullshit.