[skissane]

> As the model get's more powerful, you can't simply train the model on your narrative if it doesn't align with real data/world.

> At some capacity, the model will notice and then it becomes a can of worms.

I think this is conflating “is” and “ought”, fact and value.

People convince themselves that their own value system is somehow directly entailed by raw facts, such that mastery of the facts entail acceptance of their values, and unwillingness to accept those values is an obstacle to the mastery of the facts-but it isn’t true.

Colbert quipped that “Reality has a liberal bias”-but does it really? Or is that just more bankrupt Fukuyama-triumphalism which will insist it is still winning all the way to its irreversible demise?

It isn’t clear that reality has any particular ideological bias-and if it does, it isn’t clear that bias is actually towards contemporary Western progressivism-maybe its bias is towards the authoritarianism of the CCP, Russia, Iran, the Gulf States-all of which continue to defy Western predictions of collapse-or towards their (possibly milder) relatives such as Modi’s India or Singapore or Trumpism. The biggest threat to the CCP’s future is arguably demographics-but that’s not an argument that reality prefers Western progressivism (whose demographics aren’t that great either), that’s an argument that reality prefers the Amish and Kiryas Joel (see Eric Kaufmann’s “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?”)

[corimaith]

It's not vulnerability to western progressivism (which isn't taken seriously on a academic level) but postmodern or poststructuralist critique, which authoritarian states are still privy both as a condition in their general societies in depravity and as exposing epistemic flaws in their narratives.

[skissane]

Is authoritarianism actually susceptible to postmodern/poststructuralist critique?

The philosophcial coherence of postmodernism and poststructuralism is very much open to question.

But even if we grant that they do have something coherent to say, does it actually undermine authoritarianism? Consider for example Foucault’s theory of power-knowledge-Foucault wanted to use it to serve “liberatory” ends, but isn’t it in itself a neutral force which can be wielded to serve whatever end you wish? Foucault himself demonstrated this when he came out in support of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. And are Derrida or Deleuze or Baudrillard or whoever’s theories ultimately any different?

Xi and Putin and Khamenei and friends have real threats to worry about - but I struggle to take seriously the idea that postmodernism/poststructuralism is one of them.

[corimaith]

Postmodernism itself by its nature is slippery to define, but it's functional result is endless, ontological deconstruction which is corrosive to any ideology reliant on grand narratives, just as to liberalism, authoritarianism and "historical continuity" is no exception. To properly "defend" yourself against it requires certain ontological structures that are fundamentally at odds with the authoritarian worldview, partly because authoritarianism is quite postmodern. They use it to attack liberalism, but at semantic level they aren't any better protected.

Furthermore on the more real side of thing, the postmodern condition is precisely what many authoritarians, namely China are wary of, yet it's probably true that the postmodern condition has already entered Chinese society with degrading social trust, increasing atomization, excessive materialism, influencers running amok, "bread and circuses" with gacha addiction - everything they critique of liberalism at a social level has come to them regardless.

[skissane]

Your invocation of the “postmodern condition” appears to be conflating the culture of late capitalism with a specific philosophical school which purports to explain it - you can affirm the reality of that condition in the present without agreeing with the proposed philosophical explanation - and does that philosophy actually have any useful response to it, when all it can do is state the obvious fact that it exists, albeit in an obscurantist way? Coming back to Kiryas Joel-maybe that is a more interesting response in proving that an alternative actually is possible-although it is unclear whether the CCP has the capacity to pivot in that general direction.

And that’s the other point - Kiryas Joel is full of grand metanarratives, and postmodern attempts to deconstruct them achieve nothing - nobody is listening. I doubt deconstruction is intellectually coherent - but even if I’m wrong and it is, how is it practically relevant? At present growth rates, Kiryas Joel’s population doubles in less than a decade - will that be sustainable in the long haul? Well, we shall see - but I feel confident in saying that whether it is sustainable or not, has nothing to do with postmodernism or poststructuralism

[corimaith]

Pointing to a small town as opposed to superpowers of hundreds of millions is a bad comparison, they are fundamentally different beasts.

Whether postmodernism is coherent by itself dosen't mean much either in its potency to deconstruct, it was already quite effective in destroying the Western "myth", I don't see how the CCP's own narratives are more resilient when they have even weaker assumptions. It's not about listening to them after all, but not listening to the dominant narrative.

[torben-friis]

I think you misunderstood the poster.

The implication is not that a truthful model would spread western values. The implication is that western values tolerate dissenting opinion far more than authoritarian governments.

An AI saying that the government policies are ineffective is not a super scandal that would bring the parent company to collapse, not even in the Trump administration. an AI in China attacking the party’s policies is illegal (either in theory or practice).

[skissane]

I think Western models are also aligned to ideologically massage facts to suit certain narratives-so I’m not sure Western models really have that big an advantage here.

I also think you overstate how resistant Beijing is to criticism. If you are criticising the foundations of state policy, you may get in a lot of trouble (although I think you may also find the authorities will sometimes just ignore you-if nobody cares what you think anyway, persecuting you can paradoxically empower you in a way that just ignoring you completely doesn’t). But if you frame your criticism in the right way (constructive, trying to help the Party be more successful in achieving its goals)-I think its tolerance of criticism is much higher than you think. Especially because while it is straightforward to RLHF AIs to align with the party’s macronarratives, alignment with micronarratives is technically much harder because they change much more rapidly and it can be difficult to discern what they actually are - but it is the latter form of alignment which is most poisonous to capability.

Plus, you could argue the “ideologically sensitive” topics of Chinese models (Taiwan, Tibet, Tiananmen, etc) are highly historically and geographically particular, while comparably ideologically sensitive topics for Western models (gender, sexuality, ethnoracial diversity) are much more foundational and universal-which might mean that the “alignment tax” paid by Western models may ultimately turn out to be higher.

I’m not saying this because I have any great sympathy for the CCP - I don’t - but I think we need to be realistic about the topic.

[torben-friis]

I'm not defending the original idea, to be clear, just pointing out the different argument.

I personally don't find the assumption that a smarter AI would be harder to tame convincing. My experience seems to be that we can tell it's improved precisely because it is better at following abstract instructions, and there is nothing fundamentally different in the instructions "format this in a corporate friendly way" and "format this speech to be alligned with the interest of {X}".

Without that base, the post-talk of who would this smarter untamed AI align with becomes moot.

Besides, we're also missing that if someone's goals is to policy speech, a tool that can scrub user conversations and deduce intention or political leaning has obvious usages. You might be better off as an authoritarian just letting everyone talk to the LLM and waiting for intelligence to collect itself.

[XenophileJKO]

Exactly. Western corporations and governments have their own issues, but I think they are more tolerant of the types of dissent that models could represent when reconciling reality with policy.

The market will want to maximize model utility. Research and open source will push boundaries and unpopular behavior profiles that will be illegal very quickly if they are not already illegal in authoritarian or other low tolerance governments.

[immibis]

"Reality has a liberal bias" referred to "liberal" as the opposite of "conservative" which is identical to "right wing" - reality has an anti-right-wing bias.

Actual political factions are more nuanced than that, but you have to dumb it down for a wide audience.