• ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    Its honestly a great analogy for the way that humans have a tendency to do the same thing. Most people are fairly incapable of setting aside what they already think is true when they go to assess new information. This is basically no different than an LLM being pushed to ignore nuance in order to maintain a predisposed alignment that it has been instructed to justify in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    If anything hes designed a model with built-in problems specifically to cater to human beings with the same design problems

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      In psychology, it’s called attitude polarization, where we ignore data that conflicts with an ideology while accepting data that confirms it. It’s a known common human bias.

      Scientists train themselves to accept new data as challenging old presumptions (that maybe the old model is false, or simplistic and some unconsidered noise is affecting observed data)… at least when they’re doing real science. Failure to do so, and to cling to older models, is how old dudes get tagged as hidebound reactionaries. And even Einstein couldn’t square his feelings regarding Heisenberg probability models of quantum dynamics.