this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
154 points (78.9% liked)

Technology

59421 readers
3619 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
154
The double sexism of ChatGPT’s flirty “Her” voice (www.vox.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (15 children)

But if OpenAI didn’t do anything wrong, why would it take down the voice?

This almost made me stop reading. What a garbage point, if someone is offended by something I did, even if I did nothing wrong, I don't do it to them again because I'm not an asshole. He's clearly an asshole who tried to use her voice anyway, but this line of questioning is garbage...decent people apologize all the time when they've done nothing wrong, and then not do the offending thing again, without admitting guilt.

But the design choice is worrying on an ethical level. Researchers say it reinforces sexist stereotypes of women as servile beings who exist only to do someone else’s bidding — to help them, comfort them, and plump up their ego.

And this is where I stopped. If they had used a male voice, they could have argued that they were excluding women. But they did a study and picked the voice people would respond to the best. And objective choice. The author set out to find sexism, and by golly they did it. Amazing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The potential of a "exclusion argument" does not justify reinforcing the servile, assistant stereotype. Researchers arent pulling that one out of their ass.

I could pull together a youtube playlist of beardy men explaining why woman hating is bad. Would you like that?

(Edit: Rhetorical. We can all see your true colors with the "gay agenda" conspiracy pushing bs.)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

The potential of a “exclusion argument” does not justify reinforcing the servile, assistant stereotype.

My point is that no matter what openai did, the author could have found sexism in it. It's not hard to create something like this if you're really trying.

I could pull together a youtube playlist of beardy men explaining why woman hating is bad. Would you like that?

I don't follow.

(Edit: Rhetorical. We can all see your true colors with the “gay agenda” conspiracy pushing bs.)

Lol. I've been an lbgtq ally probably even before you were born. The fact that I can see that this ridiculously biased source for what it is doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist against gay people.

Thanks for demonstrating my point. You were desperate to reveal my "try colors" and, by golly, you were going to find it regardless of how much you had to spin.

load more comments (13 replies)