bohreffect

bohreffect t1_jcgcr96 wrote

Seeing who constitutes high profile names in "AI Ethics", having watched individual debacles unfold in the industry over the last few years, it doesn't instill confidence that they're particularly valuable. It's very, very hard not to have cynical takes about the people bubbling to the top.

In general I don't think unaccountable focus groups of people are the best moral arbiters either. In this instance I feel we have to go with our least worst option deferring to the wisdom of crowds.

3

bohreffect t1_j9uy9ko wrote

>What about when ChatGPT

I mean, we're facing even more important dilemas right now, with ChatGPT's saftey rails. What is it allowed to talk about, or not? What truths are verbotten?

If the plurality of Internet content is written by these sorts of algorithms, that have hardcoded "safety" layers, then dream of truly open access to information that was the Internet will be that much closer to death.

0

bohreffect t1_iz6j2xr wrote

The Jacobian of the solution of a constrained optimization program with respect to its parameters, but I thought that was understood amongst the towering intellect of neural network afficiandos, e.g. the original commenter finding backprop to be stale.

Here's the stochastic programming version: Section 3.3. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/file/3fc2c60b5782f641f76bcefc39fb2392-Paper.pdf

1