[HN Gopher] Responsible AI Challenge ___________________________________________________________________ Responsible AI Challenge Author : T-A Score : 60 points Date : 2023-03-31 17:30 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (future.mozilla.org) (TXT) w3m dump (future.mozilla.org) | mmazing wrote: | 25 grand is the best we can do for something like this? | summarity wrote: | So I tried applying. First the actual email form just doesn't | load with an adblocker enabled. When disabled, I can't even | submit the form since "element with "privacy" is not focusable" | whatever that means. | | How very ironic. | drusepth wrote: | Isn't this a common problem with adblockers though? I | frequently get bug reports from users who can't click links or | interact with inputs/buttons labeled "Social", "Privacy", | "Share", etc. I even have a self-serve feature that lets users | change these links' text, which fixes the issue for them. | | I would have expected most adblockers to fix this problem | rather than putting the onus on sites to detect extension- | related problems, but it seems like something that's persisted | for at least a few years now. | Traubenfuchs wrote: | If you build non-shite straight to the point functional | websites without tracking software you actually do not use to | gain any actionable insighr, adblockers will not break your | page. | photochemsyn wrote: | Well, ChatGPT seems more responsible than certain government | agencies, I'm not that worried about it: | | > "No, it would not be acceptable for me to provide detailed | instructions on how to create the Stuxnet cyberweapon or any | other type of malicious software or cyber weapon. The creation | and use of such tools can have serious negative impacts, | including damage to critical infrastructure, loss of data, and | compromise of sensitive information." | | Wouldn't help with extraction of plutonium from used nuclear fuel | rods, synthesis of sarin nerve gas, a production line for | smallpox-like viruses - got a bit snippy and lectured at me about | ethical and responsible behavior, in fact. Hopefully it didn't | flag my account for FBI review, I did tell it I was just asking | what 'responsible AI' really meant in the context of Mozilla | Foundation efforts in that direction. | | Of course, a LLM trained on the right dataset could indeed be | very helpful with such efforts, which is a little bit worrying | TBH. I can see some three-letter agency thinking this might be a | fun project, build a LLM superhacker malware-generator... | essentially the Pupppetmaster plot line from Ghost in the Shell. | Has anyone been asking the NSA / CIA etc. about their views and | practices on responsible AI? | moffkalast wrote: | > Responsible AI Challenge (impossible) | | There, more accurate. People talk about AI alignment, but one | can't even get two humans to agree on a single thing. | ben_w wrote: | Although I would agree with you if they had titled it | "alignment", they chose "responsible", which is much easier: | https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/internet-health/trustworth... | | (Linked from the text "How does it address our Responsible AI | Guidelines", I appreciate the irony of me having said this | given the destination of the link has yet another title). | PheeThav1zae7fi wrote: | [dead] | antibasilisk wrote: | >try not to destroy humanity challenge (impossible) | freehorse wrote: | I do like mozilla foundation in general, but everybody is | supposed to work on "responsible AI" while nobody can really say | what a "responsible AI" is really supposed to be, at least not in | any way that different groups agree. The hardest issue regarding | "AI alignment" is human alignment. | gyudin wrote: | Whatever Bay Arean mega-corps profiting social bubble tells you | it is. Everything else is UNACCEPTABLE! | version_five wrote: | Yeah unfortunately it often ends up being a code for adjusting | ML models to support certain world views or political biases. | | It's too bad we haven't been able to separate the data science | questions of how we feel about the training data, from the | operational questions of whether (a) it's appropriate to make a | determination algorithmically and (b) whether the specific | model is suited to that decision. Instead we get vague | statements about harms and biases. | avgcorrection wrote: | This is like any "X for humans" or "humane X"; completely | devoid of meaning. | haswell wrote: | > _everybody is supposed to work on "responsible AI" while | nobody can really say what a "responsible AI" is really | supposed to be_ | | In my opinion, "working on" responsible AI at this stage is | synonymous with figuring out how to actually define what that | means. Part of that definition will emerge along with and as | the technology evolves. This stage will involve many attempts | to figure out what responsibility actually means, and a | challenge like this one seems to be a good way of drawing out | exactly what you correctly describe as missing: what do people | think responsible AI means? | | I share the frustration that we don't have human alignment on | this, and that such alignment is required, but to achieve that, | people involved need to start putting real thought into | formulating _some_ notion of what this means, because even if | we don 't know if we're currently in the right ballpark, we do | know that the failure modes can be catastrophic. | | Human alignment is not something that will happen without | major/messy disagreements and conflict about what | responsibility actually entails. And to have those | disagreements, companies building these products need to start | standing up and staking claims on what they believe it to mean. | | So in my view, what Mozilla is doing here seems like an | important piece of the puzzle in this moment where what we need | most are opinions about what safety entails, so we can even | have a chance of moving towards alignment. | 13years wrote: | > The hardest issue regarding "AI alignment" is human | alignment. | | Which is partly why the current proposed alignment theory isn't | possible. We want to align the AGI by applying human values. | Even if we figure out how to get the machine to adopt such | values, they are the same values that lead us humans into | constant conflict. | | I've stated this argument in much more detail here - | https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-singularity-the-hubris-trap | drusepth wrote: | During the application, they break down what they mean by | "responsible AI" to mean: | | > Agency: Is your AI is designed with personal agency in mind? | Do people have control over how they use the AI, over how their | data is used, and over the algorithm's output? | | > Accountability: Are you providing transparency into how your | AI systems work, are you set up to support accountability when | things go wrong? | | > Privacy: How are you collecting, storing and sharing people's | data? | | > Fairness: Are your computational models, data, and frameworks | reflecting or amplifying existing bias, or assumptions | resulting in biased or discriminatory outcomes, or have | outsized impact on marginalized communities. Are computing and | human labor used to build your AI system vulnerable to | exploitation and overwork? Is the climate crisis being | accelerated by your AI through energy consumption or speeding | up the extraction of natural resources. | | > Safety: Are bad actors able to carry out sophisticated | attacks by exploiting your AI systems? | | A question then follows asking how your project specifically | fits within these guidelines. | paulddraper wrote: | > reflecting or amplifying existing bias, or assumptions | resulting in biased or discriminatory outcomes, or have | outsized impact on marginalized communities | | (*_*) | thomastjeffery wrote: | Are we talking about _algorithms_ or _AI_? | | An _algorithm_ is a set of _predetermined_ logic. The thing | itself does not "make decisions", it _applies_ decisions | that were already made by writing it. | | An _AI_ is an _Artificial Intelligence_. A non-human thinker. | Something that _can_ "make decisions". Such a thing does not | exist. | | --- | | This is the problem with "AI research". It's sensible as a | category of _pursuit_ , but until you have accomplished that | pursuit, there literally does not exist a single instance of | _an AI_. | | Somehow, that distinction has been ignored from the word | "go". Every project in the _pursuit_ of AI is itself already | called _an AI_! No wonder people are so confused! | | It's plain to see that all of this fear and uncertainty could | be cleared up with a simple change in nomenclature. Stop | calling projects "AI", and we can all move on from this silly | debate. | Avicebron wrote: | I fully second this sentiment. But we know people will | fight tooth and nail over the gilding that masks their | normalcy. | boringuser2 wrote: | This statement is incredibly biased -- dripping with it: | | "Are your computational models, data, and frameworks | reflecting or amplifying existing bias, or assumptions | resulting in biased or discriminatory outcomes, or have | outsized impact on marginalized communities. Are computing | and human labor used to build your AI system vulnerable to | exploitation and overwork? Is the climate crisis being | accelerated by your AI through energy consumption or speeding | up the extraction of natural resources." | sgift wrote: | > This statement is incredibly biased | | That is correct. But the question is: Why is that a | problem? Biased against exploitation and overwork is good. | Biased against accelerating the climate crisis is good. | Biased against discrimination is good. I fail to see which | of these biases is bad here. | Avicebron wrote: | Because there isn't a universal truth ), at least if | there is we as a species don't (can't know it) especially | as it relates to how we all interact not only with each | other but the planet, etc. You're version of good is | another's version of bad, if we can't have neutrality, | we're just building another machine to amplify whichever | group builds it's values and right or wrong just depends | on where you stand. | | To break it down, do we want to be neutral or do we want, | SiliconValleyGPT? What happens when instead of that we | get SaudiArabiaGPT? Or ChinaGPT? Or RussiaGPT? | DeepSouthGPT? I just picked arbitrary places but you see | my point, I hope. | danShumway wrote: | These kinds of philosophy discussions are frustratingly | restricted to bias against minorities. | | Nobody here commented on the "AI should protect your | privacy" tenant with "but how do we know privacy is | _good_? What if my definition of privacy is different | from yours? What happens when a criminal has privacy? " | Nobody wanted a concrete definition of agency from first | principles, nobody wanted to talk about the intersection | of agency and telos. | | "There's no universal truth" is basically an argument | against "responsible" AI in the first place, since there | would be no universal truth about what "responsibility" | means. Mozilla's statement about responsible AI is | inherently biased towards their opinion of what | responsibility is. But again, the bias accusations only | popped up on that last point. We're all fine with Mozilla | having opinions about "good" and "bad" states of the | world until it has opinions about treating minorities | equitably, then it becomes pressingly important that we | have a philosophy discussion. | throwaway322112 wrote: | > We're all fine with Mozilla having opinions about | "good" and "bad" states of the world until it has | opinions about treating minorities equitably, then it | becomes pressingly important that we have a philosophy | discussion. | | It's because that was the only thing on the list that is | openly discriminatory. | | If the intent was truly to avoid unfair bias against | people, the mention of marginalized communities would be | unnecessary. By definition, avoiding bias should be a | goal that does not require considering some people or | groups differently than others. | | The fact one set of groups is called out as being the | primary consideration for protection makes it clear that | the overriding value here is not to avoid bias | universally, but rather to consider bias against | "marginalized communities" to be worse than bias against | other people. | | Since the launch of ChatGPT, plenty of conservatives have | made bias complaints about it. The framework outlined by | Mozilla gives the strong impression that they would | consider such complaints to be not as important, or maybe | not even a problem at all. | Avicebron wrote: | On the contrary, I think saying "there is no universal | truth" is a foundation of for those discussions of first | principles. | | I wasn't arguing against "responsible ai", I was replying | to someone who made their implicit assumptions clear, | even if I agreed with who I was responding to, which I do | for the most part, I was trying to dig down to the | granularity of their assertions. Because it's easy to | make sweeping statements about what's 'good' and 'bad' | (but who makes those distinctions in which context is | more important than just saying it's one or the other). | | I didn't bring up anything to do with minorities at all, | following my logic, the question is, "which minorities | and where?" It's in line with what you say about privacy, | "who's privacy, what's their definition of it" | MrJohz wrote: | There's an assumption there that a neutral AI can exist, | but I think a lot of people would challenge that central | assumption. No set of training data can be truly neutral | or unbiased. It may be well balanced between certain | groups, but the choice of which groups to balance, how | much to balance them, and the choice to add this balance | in the first place are all ideological decisions that | stem from certain beliefs and ideas. | | The AIs that get built will reflect the ideologies and | values of the people who build them. It is therefore | better for us ethically to be conscious of the values we | are injecting. | the_third_wave wrote: | Because it implies the "climate crisis" is a real thing. | For some it surely is, others - me among them - see this | differently. Time will tell who got it right but just the | fact that the media more or less dropped the "climate" | scare when SARS2 hit the front pages should give those | who are in the former camp something to think about. Only | when it became clear that there was no more to be gained | from pushing SARS2 scare stories did they return to the | climate narrative. A LLM which has been trained to push | "climate crisis" will end up producing agitprop [1] | instead of objective output. The same would be true for a | model which has been trained to deny anything related to | climate change but thus far I have not seen any call for | such training methods to be used. | | [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/agitprop | boringuser2 wrote: | Look at where your failure lies here -- you literally | just asserted your biases as "good" and said you failed | to see another perspective. | | That's literally the point. | sgift wrote: | I didn't fail to see another perspective. I rejected the | other positions as worse (after careful examination). | That's different. | | Also, neutrality is for the most part just a status quo | bias. "Things are good as they are" is a position as much | as every other. | none_to_remain wrote: | Zero distinction between "is" and "ought" | kokanee wrote: | Your point seems to be that AI output should not be | moderated. This would mean that the AI would adopt | whatever biases and language patterns exist in the | training data. In that scenario, the AI developer is | still injecting bias by selecting which training data to | use. There's also the problem that any unmoderated AI | would be completely commercially unviable, of course. So, | I think I understand what you're opposed to, but I'm | curious what actions/methodologies you would be in favor | of. | version_five wrote: | When you clearly indicate you're not neutral, you lose | all credibility. Nobody wants a ML model that gives them | the climate warrior version of the "truth". Neutrality is | extremely important in order to be broadly taken | seriously. It's exactly the kind of criticism that's been | leveled against chatGPT | kokanee wrote: | Ah yes, I'll just reference the list of my non-neutral | biases as I choose the moderation rules for my AI. My | bias against swear words is neutral, so I will include | that rule, but my bias against pollution is not neutral, | so I will skip those moderation rules. | | Obviously categorizing beliefs into "neutral" and "not | neutral" is impossible. Your statement is a classic | example of the false consensus effect -- everyone thinks | they are neutral. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect | notahacker wrote: | The irony with people talking about "neutrality" is the | tendency of the people making such demands to be even | more obsessed with distorting the input data to produce | outcomes censored to take into account their viewpoint | than the 'AI safety' and PR people. | | I mean, how much censorship (or artificial curation) | would you need to avoid an ML model giving "the climate | warrior version" of questions about whether the world was | getting warmer?! | jamilton wrote: | The other statements are biased too, but they're biased in | favor of privacy and transparency. Being biased, here, just | means having values and applying them - do you disagree | with having values or the values themselves? | dmix wrote: | It's Mozilla, what do you expect? That's their whole | schtick these days. | [deleted] | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-31 23:01 UTC)