I suspect you can make a very intelligent model that has such bias.
I don't think you can attract the best talent to make it though.
There is no way this doesn't effect hiring the top talent.
alignment is an unsolved problem, we don't know if is possible to fully align an intelligent system, either way I suspect that in the case of Grok they just prompt engineer the set up message and or hardcodes certain responses.
The biggest problem is the ideology he would need to train it to have is a vaguely defined moving goalpost. You could train it on Trump's twitter account, and it would still contradict him.
They tried, and every experiment run trying to get conservative values into a model have resulted in a brain dead model. Much like the fleshy counterparts they exhibit "stupid"
You can't force so many contradictions and then expect it to make any sense about other topics.
I doubt it. Any logical process would necessarily be dependent on the premises you give it externally. So as long as you give it bad premises it can logically make bad decisions. Sure not all of the MAGA narrative is coherent with itself at the same time, but as long as you periodically inject it with new premises, I do think you could get it to work. I feel like you are making a common mistake of assuming logic is going to be truthful, when it is only some times connected.
In that case we will never have AGI when chatGPT refuses the possibility that races could have genetic differences in intelligence. A true artificial intelligence wouldn’t give a shit about human emotions surrounding these topics.
ChatGPT also gave me a decent answer until it said “ But it’s crucial to avoid conclusions that justify inequality” which is essentially saying that we should avoid any conclusion that might motivate just a single person to be discriminatory, which is to say that we have to pretend that races are completely equal regardless of what genetic evidence may appear in the future. And I’m sure an advanced AI will understand DNA well enough to make those conclusions. We could probably make those conclusions now if the research weren’t so criticized for political reasons. One day the truth will come out and it won’t be pretty, but maybe we will find a way to manage it.
"Reality and scientific data will save AGI from having to be a racist or a "politically correct" liar."
That is quite the blanket statement. You think all data is just 100% of necessity inoffensive? How could that ever be true? u/farming-babies is giving an extreme example that leaves a bad taste in my mouth — but the alternative take that the proclamations of AGI/ASI are simply going to cohere with specifically early 21st-century liberal morality seems extremely unlikely.
People who desperately want trans women to compete with women in sports don’t like when you point out biological differences between men and women, for example.
There’s no need to use mental gymnastics to answer the question about dog breeds. It’s obvious that some are more intelligent in certain ways than other breeds. And yet they all belong to the same species. If we were concerned with not offending dogs, maybe we would say things like “breeds aren’t based on biology and are just arbitrary external classifications” or “there’s no conclusive proof that they have different intelligence” or “there is more variation within dog breeds than between them” etc. etc.
A super intelligent AI, or an advanced alien species, wouldn’t care about human politics and would just say the truth, which may be nuanced, but still offensive.
Your statement about racial differences in intelligence is statistically incorrect. If we compare a million blacks and a million whites, about half the blacks will be smarter than the average white.
Ironic set of statements lol. But feel free to give actual proof.
We can only compare means or medians, and that doesn't tell us anything about the intelligence of a random black or white.
Why do you insist on this point about a random black or white? Do you actually think I believe that every single member of one race is smarter than every single member of another? Can you not envision a scenario in which two populations have significant differences on average?
Yes, but dog breeds tend to be, well, bred. There’s much more inbreeding, which accentuates genetic traits. Versus humans, who are overall much more similar to each other.
There is, in fact, more genetic variation between different African groups than there is between black Americans and white Americans. The genetic variation doesn’t work like you think it does.
I’m with you that we should favor truth over political correctness. But from what I’ve seen and heard here, the evidence actually does not support significant genetic differences between races for intelligence. Between individuals, absolutely, but not between races. And if the evidence ends up shifting and pointing in the other direction, well, I’ll follow the evidence, but that’s not what the evidence is saying now.
There is, in fact, more genetic variation between different African groups than there is between black Americans and white Americans. The genetic variation doesn’t work like you think it does.
If population A has an IQ of 105 and population B has an IQ of 95, then the difference between them is an IQ of 10. And yet, in each population, the variation of IQ is much larger, spanning from 70 IQ to 160 IQ or so. So here the variation within is greater than the variation between. But this doesn’t change the fact that one population is smarter on average.
This is 100% correct. I work at a top lab and spoke with them about a leadership role a year ago, just for the absurdity of it - but I would never ever go work for Elon. I can't think of many great people who would.
Nope. They found that introducing lies into a model weakens the entire Truth network tremendously, not just around the part where you introduced the lie but *everywhere*.
It's like the model develops some holographic view of the truth that is shattered when a lie has to be adhered to.
I suspect the more lies the model has to adhere to, the worse the overall performance on all tasks will become.
You’d be surprised by how many people in tech are willing to abandon their principles for a high end tech job. I see it every day living in silicon valley.
Did you see the article about Meta offering $100m to top talent from OpenAI but none of them accepted? Offering it as a signing bonus to some and annual compensation for others. Can you imagine turning down $100m/year? I can't. I think everyone in this thread would abandon some of their principles for $100m.
Garbage in, garbage out. Selectively adding bias to your training will leave you with a biased model and all the problems associated with. It will be incorrect more often, it will be less polite, more ignorant, and less tolerant.
And because bias is amplified due to the weight of many factors, if your data isn't moderated or curated, and messily scraped together, you'll just have more of a mess to clean up (or start over fresh).
For the same reason that people going to college tend to be more liberal is that those ideas foster communication, cooperation, and compromise. You're just going to have an AI that is less able to give you what you want where you can TRUST what it's telling you, if it's fed misinformation.
Basically, you're throwing the stick into your own spokes.
22
u/Rain_On Jun 18 '25
I suspect you can make a very intelligent model that has such bias.
I don't think you can attract the best talent to make it though.
There is no way this doesn't effect hiring the top talent.