• 0 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 8th, 2023

help-circle
  • Well I for one (not GP) am actually quite glad that it is literally illegal to publicly display here in Germany, especially with the current political climate going on here and elsewhere. You want to just out yourself as a Nazi? Okay, off to prison you go. That’s good. AFAIK there are exemptions for temples and such, e.g. for artistic uses like Games, some Wolfenstein games replaced swastikas in the German release because nobody was sure if that’s legal.

    I don’t think it is actually illegal to display in any country that has a lot of people using it religiously, but yeah it’s a sad fact that it still has to be illegal in so many places such a long time later.









  • If you rise anywhere above lever 5 or so, the difficulty ratchets up so much it makes the main quest nearly impossible to complete.

    Didn’t Oblivion already have the difficulty slider? You could just adjust that, no?

    I know level scaling is a big topic in the industry, but for me, the way it’s implemented nearly ruins what is otherwise a mostly great game.

    Two of the first RPGs I played were Gothic and Gothic II which released approximately alongside Morrowind and Oblivion, and they just had no dynamic level scaling at all, so I don’t really see the appeal either. A tiny Mole Rat being roughly the same challenge as a big bad Orc just breaks immersion. If you were to meet the latter in early game it would just curb stomp you, which provided an immersive way of gating content and a real sense of achievement when you came back later with better armour and weapons to finally defeat the enemy who gave you so many problems earlier. Basically the same experience you had with Death Claws in Fallout New Vegas when compared to Fallout 3 - they aren’t just a set piece, they are a real challenge.

    The games had their own problems, for example the fighting system sucked, and I’m told the English translation was so bad the games just flopped in the Anglosphere, putting them squarely in the Eurojank category of games. But creating a real sense of progression and an immersive world were certainly not amongst their weaknesses.



  • Oh I suppose it’s still not as bad as other places. It was free and fully financed by taxes because it was seen as a societal investment, now it’s ~300€ per semester at my university and still mostly financed through taxes. But the neoliberals sure didn’t impose that without a fight! And they would probably have set it higher if they could.

    I mean I know I’m complaining from a position of privilege here (sorry US debt slave bros), but still, fuck that shit. Cutting the most financially vulnerable people in society out of an education is what that amounts to. In other words, it’s just another front in class warfare.



  • a neural network with a series of layers (W in this case would be a single layer)

    I understood this differently. W is a whole model, not a single layer of a model. W is a layer of the Transformer architecture, not of a model. So it is a single feed forward or attention model, which is a layer in the Transformer. As the paper says, a LoRA:

    injects trainable rank decomposition matrices into each layer of the Transformer architecture

    It basically learns shifting the output of each Transformer layer. But the original Transformer stays intact, which is the whole point, as it lets you quickly train a LoRA when you need this extra bias, and you can switch to another for a different task easily, without re-training your Transformer. So if the source of the bias you want to get rid off is already in these original models in the Transformer, you are just fighting fire with fire.

    Which is a good approach for specific situations, but not for general ones. In the context of OP you would need one LoRA for fighting it sexualising Asian women, then you would need another one for the next bias you find, and before you know it you have hundreds and your output quality has degraded irrecoverably.


  • Yeah but that’s my point, right?

    That

    1. you do not “replace data until your desired objective”.
    2. the original model stays intact (the W in the picture you embedded).

    Meaning that when you change or remove the LoRA (A and B), the same types of biases will just resurface from the original model (W). Hence “less biased” W being the preferable solution, where possible.

    Don’t get me wrong, LoRAs seem quite interesting, they just don’t seem like a good general approach to fighting model bias.


  • First, there is no thing as a “de-biased” training set, only sets with whatever target series of biases you define for them to reflect.

    Yes, I obviously meant “de-biased” by definition of whoever makes the set. Didn’t think it worth mentioning, as it seems self evident. But again, in concrete terms regarding the OP this just means not having your dataset skewed towards sexualised depictions of certain groups.

    1. either you replace data until your desired objective, which will reduce the model’s quality for any of the alternatives

    […]
    For reference, LoRAs are a sledgehammer approach to apply the first way.

    The paper introducing LoRA seems to disagree (emphasis mine):

    We propose Low-Rank Adaptation, or LoRA, which freezes the pre-trained model weights and injects trainable rank decomposition matrices into each layer of the Transformer architecture, greatly reducing the number of trainable parameters for downstream tasks.

    There is no data replaced, the model is not changed at all. In fact if I’m not misunderstanding it adds an additional neural network on top of the pre-trained one, i.e. it’s adding data instead of replacing any. Fighting bias with bias if you will.

    And I think this is relevant to a discussion of all models, as reproduction of training set biases is something common to all neural networks.


  • “Inclusive models” would need to be larger.

    [citation needed]

    To my understanding the problem is that the models reproduce biases in the training material, not model size. Alignment is currently a manual process after the initial unsupervised learning phase, often done by click-workers (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, RLHF), and aimed at coaxing the model towards more “politically correct” outputs; But ultimately at that time the damage is already done since the bias is encoded in the model weights and will resurface in the outputs just randomly or if you “jailbreak” enough.

    In the context of the OP, if your training material has a high volume of sexualised depictions of Asian women the model will reproduce that in its outputs. Which is also the argument the article makes. So what you need for more inclusive models is essentially a de-biased training set designed with that specific purpose in mind.

    I’m glad to be corrected here, especially if you have any sources to look at.