There is the model that you end up fine-tuning, which produces reasonable continuations of almost anything in its training dataset, whether it is something any approves of or not.
>Even this example, what sources do you trust that is or is not "in the readers best interest", what is propaganda or what is an implicit value in a society, when you tune an LLM does that just mean you're steering it to give answers that you like more?
You tune the model yourself. You tune it to find the things you're looking for and which interest you.
>Creating an unbiased LLM is as much of a fools errand as creating an unbiased news publication
It's what you do before pretraining. You model human-written texts with metadata and context with the intent of actually modeling those texts, rather than excising something which isn't just causing the model to fail to learn other things.
It's like, asking "what's a cake, really". We can argue about lines etc., but everbody knows. An unbiased language model is a reasonable thing to want and it's not complicated to understand what it is.
Can you imagine unbiased courts, as an ideal? Somebody who just doesn't care about anything other than certain things? Just as such a thing can be imagined, so can you imagine someone who doesn't about reality and just wants to understand human texts.
I'm not sure if you are reading what I am saying by bias. Human language, events, decisions, only exists in the cultural and historical contexts around it.
> unbiased courts
You say this as something could ever exist. A court will always have a bias because it is humans with values and morals that make a decision. Think about the classic "would you steal bread to feed your family", or even the trolley problem, or as a very concrete example the recent overturning of Roe v Wade in America (keeping in mind that both sides of that discussion reveal an implicit bias based on your starting set of morals and values). Any question that involves a base set of values and morals will never have an unbiased answer.
But there are people who are peculiar and decide to only do one thing. Such a person can easily decide that the only thing that matters is interpreting the law as written.
>Even this example, what sources do you trust that is or is not "in the readers best interest", what is propaganda or what is an implicit value in a society, when you tune an LLM does that just mean you're steering it to give answers that you like more?
You tune the model yourself. You tune it to find the things you're looking for and which interest you.
>Creating an unbiased LLM is as much of a fools errand as creating an unbiased news publication
It's what you do before pretraining. You model human-written texts with metadata and context with the intent of actually modeling those texts, rather than excising something which isn't just causing the model to fail to learn other things.
It's like, asking "what's a cake, really". We can argue about lines etc., but everbody knows. An unbiased language model is a reasonable thing to want and it's not complicated to understand what it is.
Can you imagine unbiased courts, as an ideal? Somebody who just doesn't care about anything other than certain things? Just as such a thing can be imagined, so can you imagine someone who doesn't about reality and just wants to understand human texts.