Comment by Applejinx
8 hours ago
I would like to have more clarity on what it considers 'human' and 'the natural world' because you could use that framing to run with a really wild ultra-right-wing viewpoint where only extremely white people are human, and the natural world means scientific medicine must be destroyed.
We don't know what it's up to unless we know how it defines these terms. What's 'primacy'? I would say climate has primacy over the artificial constructs of human civilization, 'cos we're able to nudge climate in some very alarming directions we're ill-suited to protect ourselves from.
Alignment of course brings up the question of “aligned with whose values?”
No idea why you're downvoted, it's been shown constantly that models carry forwards biases from training data, and most of the global "dataset" is filled with these biases.
It could go either way, really, but taking the sum of internet discourse at the moment, it would be super easy to conclude, like you said, non-white people, gay people, trans people, are going against the "natural world", especially if fed with right leaning media and discourse.
When I saw the negative score I went 'Hmm! soft spot!'
Of course calling out something like that would get a response. Those who are interested in furthering 'the natural world for white humans' will immediately see the possibilities of this sort of motte-and-bailey stuff. Fairly often they're directly working that beat and are very familiar with what I'm suggesting: I wasn't saying it to bring it to their attention, they're quite aware.
I mention that the definition of 'human' matters, because there are a bunch of people who don't consider skin color a disqualifier. And I spoke up because I'm such a person, and I'm wary of ways to sneakily redefine such words until common usage includes such caveats.
You're assuming it has a stable idea of that, and not something that shifts easily.
Another self-added "additional instructions" text could happen just as this one did.