“Particularly underrepresented groups include Mormons and those over 65…”
What a disaster! I home someone gets on that ASAP! /s
I don’t see how misaligning to public opinion = bias.
The public is already hugely biased; we surrender the general education of the entire adult population to news media, social media, and the entertainment industry. Which all sway public perception for their own financial and political gains.
Tbh the “public” as a mass entity is going to be more wrong than a language model; I see who y’all vote for, I wouldn’t trust you with anything 🫠
I wonder if it’s possible to bring public opinion into the error function - find weights for ChatGPT such that the next token is predicted correctly but also such that the overall output falls within the public average opinion… But then - is that a “good enough” metric?
The ways to control for algorithmic bias are typically through additional human developed layers to counteract bias present when you ingest large datasets to train. But that’s extremely work intensive. I’ve seen some interesting hypotheticals where algorithms designed specifically to identify bias can be used to tune layers with custom weighting to attempt to pull bias back down to acceptable levels, but even then we’ll probably need to watch how this changes language about groups for which there is bias.
I think the trouble with human oversight is that it’s still going to keep whatever bias the overseer has.
Bias shouldn’t exist in a language model. Human beings continue to complicate reality because of boredom.
Given a model is given a complete set of human data, there should be equal amounts of leaning in all directions. Therefore, no bias. If bias is found then the data set is incomplete and/or the person or persons creating the model are only feeding the model their own selection of data. A perfect AI is like Switzerland.
