|
|
|
|
|
|
by fpgaminer
1934 days ago
|
|
|
What's interesting about this to me is that ultimately we _want_ our AIs to learn bias. The whole point of a predictive AI is to model the behavior of the thing its predicting. So for AIs trained against humans, which CLIP is, it by necessity must learn our prejudices. If it didn't, it wouldn't be good at predicting how we describe images. The model learning bias isn't the issue. You could ask me what I think the racist members of my family might write about a given image. I'd then be able to emulate them inside my head and accurately predict their responses. We all do that. It's how we have moments like "I knew you were going to say that."; "That's typical of you to say."; "Why am I not surprised?"; etc. The fact that I, and everyone else, can do that does not imply that we are biased. It's how we behave that determines if we are biased. We want our AIs to do the same. The real ethics question here is not how to we prevent AIs from learning bias. It's how do we get AIs to not _express_ those biases. We need a way to put them into "impartial" mode, much like we take biased and fallible humans and make them judges in courtrooms. Personally I don't think that's going to be as hard as some imagine. Again, remember that these AIs are learning to emulate humans, _including_ judges. Give GPT-* a bunch of court documents and transcripts and it will learn the capacity to emulate a judge. Then you just need to carefully craft its prompt text so that for any given query, you can be reasonably sure it's acting impartially. |
|
|
The irony is that the black bias mentioned in this paper is probably due to inherent bias in image processing algorithms of the sensors themselves. Look up the "Shirley Card"