At the risk of stepping into a hornets nest: is that different than "knowledge"?
Or maybe, what would it mean if an LLM had no social biases? (Would we ever agree that was the case?)
In general, or if it isn't the correct answer?
Like: young men pay more for car insurance than young women (today). This is based on statistical models. Should they be outlawed? I think that is a very interesting question (but they aren't, today).
If the LLM was in charge, would it be wrong for it to charge young men more? Should we train that "bias" out? Or should we only train out biases that are wrong? And would that be different than how we train them today?
I don't know the answer. But I think it is less obvious than some people seem to think.
EU has outlawed them. their argument is that differentiation is only valid if the difference is the actual cause and not merely statistical correlation.
At least LLMs offer a way to be tuned against that. Not that their creators would be interested in that, since the LLM's bias is exactly the mainstream opinion that they like very much.
I’m trying to understand what people think we should correct for.
It's not interesting to observe that Grok was successfully trained to be an edgelord; anybody paying attention knew that was easily achievable.
The companies releasing these models actively encourage the act of automated decision making by them. The entire value proposition is the automation of decisions and knowledge work. It's rare to find a use case for them that isn't offboarding your thinking and therefore agency
