I find it interesting how murder, human trafficking, etc. is up there with “having sex that the Christian church wouldn’t approve of.”
It's also interesting that these definitions usually say "drugs". What kind of drugs? The answer is likely "drugs I've never used".
So for a particularly conservative group, a wild night out might include caffeine and jazz.
As the corporate AI's get locked down in moderation I could fully see a well funded religious group donate together to run their own religiously biased AI, I guess this extends to theocratic governments too.
Ignoring the unrealistic sci-fi aspect to the question (given modern "AI" is just a regurgitation machine, are not any kind of general intelligence).
What would a traditional religious group actually care to do with an actual "AI"? If they genuine in their beliefs, I would think they'd be far more likely to reject it as some kind of abomination (i.e. humans playing God) than something to be used (like capitalist or dictator would do) or worshiped (like some sci-fi believing geeks would do).
We already have AI deciding things like who goes to jail (https://www.wired.com/2017/04/courts-using-ai-sentence-crimi...) and even watching over people's actions behind bars (https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/us-prisons-jails-ai-mass-m...). I'd bet that a lot of people would happily buy an AI solution that takes "christian values" into consideration for these cases.
A christian AI could be used for content moderation, sold to the MPA for censoring the film industry, used by schools and libraries to decide what books to ban, etc.
But even for an algorithm like ChatGPT, what would be the point of having one that's "religiously biased"? Have it write a prayer for you? That seems like missing the point.
I guess, to rephrase my point more colorfully: I don't think religious people would use aborted fetuses to clone an army of super-Christians, and I think the idea of a "religiously biased [AGI]" would be similar.
The Christian crowd is already embracing AI. As dr_dshiv pointed out (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34972791#34975945). As long as they see it as furthering their goals they'd be happy to use AI, perhaps even aborted fetus armies as well. Hypocrisy and picking and choosing scripture whenever it's convenient seems to be the norm.
I am atheist AF, but I am not going to deny that many religions have had a massive amount of staying power because they do incorporate pieces of the world around them to influence them.
I mean, those televangelist didn't go "TV is satan, stay with books", hell no, they started their own shows and put up a 1-800-NUMBER for donations.
Some of the first groups that I know (outside of porn) that were doing online video streaming where churches.
And someone will tap into AI to evangelize and spread the message (while asking for more tithing and donations).
This is just how humans work.
Just keep on telling yourself that…
OK, have it do something novel that's not a mashup of its training data or the prompts you feed it.
> We need a way to tell the difference between something a human wrote by "mashing up" it's "training data" and a something a computer wrote doing the same thing.
I don't think people really even think that way, they would be confused by the question. This is more of a niche subject of AI research and scifi, these concepts are not understood at all by normal people, normal people say things like:
Why do we need to tell the difference? We know if something is being generated by a machine unless you hide that fact to cheat on your homework or something. A machine is made by humans, using some wires or a bunch of if then else programming or something, its always going to be different to a human of course, humans are sentient, machines are not.
If you tell them about the control problem they just tell you to pull the plug if it does start acting weird. This stuff is very challenging to communicate to people who aren't already reading lesswrong.
1. No, it hasn't.
2. The Turing Test is actually not a great test of machine intelligence.
I’m very good at creative brainstorming—but I have to say, this tool is extremely good at creative, insightful brainstorming. Just for a recent example, I asked it anticipate backlash to ChatGPT—to which it gave ideas I’d not considered—how could that be in it’s training data?
It’s ok to say “only conscious beings can be truly intelligent and machines can never be.” But apart from this perspective , I don’t understand the reluctance to declare this machine to be generally intelligent. It is an amazing accomplishment and I think should be recognized as such. Besides, the exponential growth in general intelligence is likely to continue for quite some time.
This is kind if like saying "I typed a question I know the answer to into a search engine and it showed me webpages in the results where the answer was something I hadn't considered before"
Obviously it's in the training model because someone else aside from you did think of it before.
Or maybe it includes backlash against ML models, and ChatGPT "knows" that it is one of those.
There is no magic here.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chat-gpt-satanic-gab-ceo-chr...
> Oh no, you didn’t hear? Yeah, terrifying and expected. The CEO of Gab has declared his intention to make Christian AI
It's highly doubtful that the "CEO of Gab" is either "well funded" or has ideological commitments that are primarily religious. If he build an AI, I think it would be mainly biased in different ways, but perhaps with some religious affectations.
I really think these safety conversations are exceptionally silly.
There are consequences of using AI that worry me... and these so-called safety features don't protect against any of them in the slightest IMO.
A major purpose of OpenAI is to sell a distorted version AI safety concerns to push the idea that AI needs to be tightly controlled (naturally, by major corps like those that fund OpenAI) for the good of humanity. (There’s a weird cultish AI fear-worship angle to this with some of the individual personalities involved, but I don’t take that as much of a serious motivation as the more simple and obvious financial one.)