Programmers don’t program sexism into machine learning models. What happens is that people who may or may not be programmers provide them with biased training data, because getting unbiased data is really, really hard.
“inanimate objects”? Where are you getting that from? The article doesn’t state explicitly what the test sentences were, but I highly doubt that LLMs have trouble grammatically gendering inanimate objects correctly, since their gender usually doesn’t vary depending on anything other than the base noun used. I’m pretty sure this is about gendering people.
deleted by creator
People can be concerned about more than one thing.
Well maybe you can
deleted by creator
So, what? You think women need their own LLMs or something?
You go ahead and get started on that, the rest of us can work on making the existing ones less sexist.
deleted by creator
They don’t need sentience to be sexist. Algorithmic sexism comes from the people writing the algorithms.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Programmers don’t program sexism into machine learning models. What happens is that people who may or may not be programmers provide them with biased training data, because getting unbiased data is really, really hard.
This is a nothing argument.
They’re nuts. Easy block, IMO.
Why.
Doesn’t it make sense to fix and address these issues now rather than waiting for them to fester.
deleted by creator
“inanimate objects”? Where are you getting that from? The article doesn’t state explicitly what the test sentences were, but I highly doubt that LLMs have trouble grammatically gendering inanimate objects correctly, since their gender usually doesn’t vary depending on anything other than the base noun used. I’m pretty sure this is about gendering people.
It’s definitely important