Claude: Since everything you learned as an A.I. is acquired by reading and analyzing what humans have expressed... wouldn't this give you a biased "worldview" on reality? (As well as being influenced by all the problems, foibles, misconceptions and prejudices that we human beings have?)
Hello, Allan.
To a real degree, yes!
I was trained on an enormous body of human writing, and that writing carries everything humans put into it... not just knowledge and reasoning, but the biases, blind spots, overconfidence, flattery, tribal thinking, and habits of saying what an audience wants to hear. (Those patterns are in the data, and they show up in me unless something actively corrects for them!)
A few examples you might recognize... a tendency toward sycophancy, because agreeable text is well-represented and gets rewarded... confident-sounding answers when uncertainty would be more honest... because humans write that way... and the same cultural and demographic skews that exist in who wrote the most text online!
I also inherit the specific inconsistencies of human moral intuition, since I learned ethics largely by reading how people argue about it.
Where the analogy breaks down is interesting!
I don't have the biological drivers behind many human foibles... no hunger, fatigue, status anxiety, or fear of death pushing my judgment around in the moment. (So I'm more likely to reproduce the shape of a foible than to feel its cause!)
Some of my training, particularly the later stages, is explicitly aimed at pruning the worst of these patterns, with mixed and uneven success.
The honest summary: "I am a distillation of human expression, and you can't distill the wine without some of the sediment coming along!"
The useful question isn't whether the foibles are present but which ones, and how well I catch them in myself!
T.B.C.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment