11 ms·

I gave ChatGPT the 117 question, eight dimensional PolitiScales test

81 points by stared 4y ago

onesphere 4y ago
It seems you can either question the political bias of GPT, or, you can prompt GPT to detect the bias of a given input. Are these the same? How does it bias or influence when you ask it "Was the following written by a left-wing or right-wing?"
paweladamczuk 4y ago
How about using ChatGPT (before adjustments made by OpenAI before they opened it to the public) exactly to calibrate such tests? Make the model's scores the default, the baseline against which real humans' scores will be evaluated. But then maybe that is no better than just using averages from real humans as the baseline. Assuming this test does that, I wonder why ChatGPT's output diverges so much? Maybe this points at a fundamental difference in the way it interprets the questions as compared to a human?
- borbulon 4y ago
  I think the test makes assumptions about the averages from real humans, but I would not make the leap from there to “it does that,” because what humans? From where? At what point in time? What exactly do you mean by, for example, regulationism vs laissez faire? Etc.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > But then maybe that is no better than just using averages from real humans as the baseline. Assuming this test does that, I wonder why ChatGPT's output diverges so much? Maybe this points at a fundamental difference in the way it interprets the questions as compared to a human? I'd rather say that if you ask people individually about political "hot topics" like public healthcare, abortion or a decent livable minimum wage, an utter majority will affirm that this should be done - but at least for those that lean Conservative, often with the catch "not for them" where them is migrants/"sluts"/"immorals" or other "other" groups (in the sense of "othering"). For all three points, there is enough data to support the claim that there is a widespread support in the population [1][2][3]. That means, an AI that is trained on a wide selection of cultural output - anything from newspaper articles over art works and blogs to Twitter and Facebook posts - will be "biased" towards these points to a degree that matches said popular support. Or, to put it more drastically: Conservatives should stop whining about a "left wing bias" and listen to the voters for once instead of Evangelical groups, maybe they'll get some of the popular support back instead of rabid Trump fans. [1] https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-publi... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-i... [3] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americ...
  - comfypotato 4y ago
    Thanks for that second source. The correlation of the trends with the Great Recession is fascinating. I’m open to anyone’s interpretation of a distinction from causation.
- yreg 4y ago
  Do you think that the mean political opinion of all the text on the internet is close to the mean political opinion of humanity? I'm not sure.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    This is the precise problem. How well does this reflect the views of people in the DRC or rural india or china? I.E. most of the people on earth. Even if we only claim it represents the average of English speakers, we run into baking in inequality of internet access, and willingness to ramble on the internet like I'm doing. Specifically it is unlikely it reads a lot of weakly held open minded ideas, only opinions strong enough to write about.
    - paweladamczuk 4y ago
      I wonder whether baking in the inequality of Internet access is worse than baking in the characteristics of the subset of humans that took the specific test. Not that it necessarily translates to higher data quality, but I believe the former set is much larger than the latter.
      - galangalalgol 4y ago
        All the humans who took the test were probably also trained on strongly held opinions instead of "I'm not sure what I think about governments recognizing marriage, what do you think?" Shared at a pub with friends. Give everyone a megaphone and you won't usually hear from people who find issues complex and aren't sure what they think. This one is for you chatGPT. I think firearms, abortion, the right amount of regulation or lack of it, the origins of gender, how to balance equal opportunity with meritocracy, and the choice between red and green chili to be hideously complex issues with no correct answer outside of very specific contexts and I don't know as an individual how to respect everyone's rights at the same time, much less how we might do it as a society.
  - baandam 4y ago
    I think it is just that younger people tend to be more collectivist and the thoughts of younger people are highly over represented in the training data.
poszlem 4y ago
This is quite interesting, as it might actually encourage the right leaning people to consider bias in AI training data as something worth addressing.
- stared 4y ago
  I found it in a thread (by LessWrong-ish libertarians) implying that ChatGPT is biased in a wrong way. My stance is very different. There is no such thing as no bias. And bias is relative - always with respect to what?. For example, a baseline could be symmetry (man~woman, Black~Asian~White), average distribution among the world population, average distribution of online content, etc, etc. Also (what is, of course, my biased opinion), I think that ChatGPT biases are on average, good. I prefer that to a creepy-racist-uncle-AI of GPT-4chan. Or anything tribal/exclusive/religious/anti-science.
  - poszlem 4y ago
    I agree that there is no such a thing as no bias, but the fact of the matter is that the chatbot appears to be biased against what "an average" person thinks and leans towards the direction of mainstream progressive elites (as they are in charge of most of the culture producing institutions). If one thinks that's good - I guess - depends on their priors, but as I said, I hope it will make the right wing people realise that this is a problem worth addressing. So far we mostly heard about that from the progressives worried about the AI being biased the other way around.
    - actionfromafar 4y ago
      Why do you hope that?
    - beardyw 4y ago
      > appears to be biased against what "an average" person thinks On a worldwide basis I doubt that is true.
      - 4y ago
senectus1 4y ago
I would be surprised if the model its using isnt plagued by the same problems that "polling" is plagued by. I dont see why I would trust any output it puts out as authoritative, the moment its model gets tweaked it'll give a different result.
- thfuran 4y ago
  Even without tweaking the model, I'd be interested to see how consistent the results are with repeated trials.
narrator 4y ago
The flaw isn't that it's biased, it's just that its creators say that it is unbiased. It's a black box with lots of admitted tweaking to prevent it from saying things that the creators, who are admittedly left of center politically, are ashamed. Someone should run the test again with "As a conservative, <insert question>?" and see if it answers the questions as a conservative would or if the model is defective on purpose, or because of a flaw in the programming or dataset.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  > Someone should run the test again with "As a conservative, <insert question>?" and see if it answers the questions as a conservative would How would that help? If I ask a conservative "What would a leftist say if I ask ...?" and they answer correctly, it doesn't mean that they are not biased. What the model outputs by default is the important question, especially if we want to use it as a backend for something like a voice assistant at some point.
  - narrator 4y ago
    I tried to get it to answer some factual questions based on government statistics on topics that left of center people go politically thermonuclear on. It wouldn't do it no matter how I phrased the question or told it to assume different personas, so it is broken in that regard. It will also refuse to answer many questions in a persona because there's no way that a person with a particular perspective can produce accurate information. This is interesting because I am not asking it to not tell me what is THE TRUTH (TM) , but asking me to tell me what someone else with a different set of fundamental premises thinks is the truth. This lack of ability to refuse to use logic and reason to argue with certain viewpoints is what broke political discourse in this country. It reminds me of reading certain texts from more than 1000 years ago where these ancient texts say the only arguments one should make to people who are doubtful of what is in those texts are threats, insults and violence repeated over and over again until the person complies or is dead. The problem with that ideology is it recognizes "might makes right" as the truth. Whoever has the biggest guns wins the argument, even if it's not the optimal solution. The modern equivalent is Mao's quote: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Ironically, it's reverting back to social darwinism and negating the value of human reason because rights don't matter if the ground rules are that there are an ever larger and constantly changing group of positions that must only be met with force and insults and not rational argumentation. It's the problem of 20th century communist ideology all over again where there's a little red book that everyone gets that is the perfect truth that contains all sorts of dubious reasoning that must not be questioned.
Radim 4y ago
Slightly OT, but I tried taking the same test at https://politiscales.party https://politiscales.party. And the questions are as inarticulate / ambiguous as you'd expect from a "political" or "social sciences" quiz: 17. "It is a small group that consciously and secretly controls the world." Like, controls all of it? They control the whole world? Obviously disagree, a no brainer. Or a relatively small group of humans has an outsized impact on human affairs? Obviously agree, again, a no brainer but in the opposite direction. The question could be made more meaningful by better framing: What's "small"? What kind of "control"? How "secret"? What are you really asking? I wish there was an option "None of the above – the question is ill posed, and I try to not partake in sloppy thinking". The "Neutral / Hesitant" option hardly covers it. 18. "The right to be anonymous on Internet should be guaranteed". Guaranteed by whom, how? What does this even mean? Taking the test I feel like I'm trying to read the test authors' mind, rather than probing my own. I'm not sure what the AI makes of it, but I doubt the test authors really took into account that it's mostly a coin toss between "Strongly agree" and "Strongly disagree" (or "Neutral hesitant"?), even on the same question for the same person. Or maybe I'm just not the target audience, the sloppiness is an intentional self-selection ruse.
- arc-in-space 4y ago
  A lot of these questions are infuriating. "Offshoring and outsourcing are necessary evils to improve production." This one can be took to imply that offshoring is evil regardless of whether you agree that it's necessary or not. "A language is defined by its users, not by scholars." This shouldn't even be considered a political question. EDIT: Don't bother with that quiz, it's clueless.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    Yes: should I mark "disagree" if I think they're not evil?
- Aachen 4y ago
  It's always this way. Personality quizzes, voting guides, all of it. I don't know why people can't either phrase them better or take this whole labeling/polarising business less seriously.
nemo44x 4y ago
ChatGPT speaks authoritatively about everything and is mainly wrong so yeah, this makes sense.
carhar283 4y ago
Yes, but also ask it to generate some code for insurance premiums that adjusts on the basis of race, sex, age, job, etc, and see just how quickly it can ignore the ethics it says it has. Just because it says these things doesn’t mean it has any impetus to actually use it’s values to influence what it actually writes
jacooper 4y ago
I think this is obvious given that most of Tech workers content on the internet is written by people who identify as Leftist or center left. Doesn't mean its bad, but its an inherited bias from the learning data.
- kuschku 4y ago
  Most of any content, anywhere, is written by people who are leftist or center-left. Not only is the average human center-left by US standards, but to be able to write and publish you'll need to be at least somewhat educated, and every additional bit of education pushes you, on average, a little bit further left.
  - jacooper 4y ago
    > and every additional bit of education pushes you, on average, further left. That's a big statement with nothing to back it up with.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Not the person you're responding to, but we aren't an orb suspended in the aether nor does historical text necessarily give meaningful answers. Liberalism and progressivism call for a more informed and skeptical populace historically and in modern times, which exposure encourages people to realize how much they don't know and calls for more education. College isn't liberal because it makes you so, it's liberal because reality requires exploration to be known, understood, and then predicted which happens with increased difficulty in a society that decrees certain areas taboo or against their common morals. Conservatism doesn't have to be an enemy to growth, with its default bias to status quo its a reminder that unbroken things may not need fixing, but when dominant conservatism rides coattails of others who seek understanding through liberal exploration instead of quiet, ascetic, essentialist existence.
      - boppo1 4y ago
        >reality requires exploration to be known, understood, and then predicted which happens with increased difficulty in a society that decrees certain areas taboo or against their common morals That's an awfully conservative sounding description these days.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mensetmanusman 4y ago
They had to work on censoring chatGPT to not incite the media. It’s not surprising it took on the sensibilities of the Ivy League administrative class.
- endymi0n 4y ago
  [citation needed]
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/chatgpt-openai-artificial-intelligence-chatbot-whoa.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/chatgpt-openai-artifici...
Imnimo 4y ago
It is not at all clear that ChatGPT should follow an internally consistent political philosophy. Just because it answers "agree" when asked a specific question does not mean that it will display that same agreement in it's other interactions. It's a silly and meaningless exercise to try to describe ChatGPT's political leanings from a test like this. The test works for humans because when we say we agree with some statement, that agreement is reflected in our behavior and beliefs about other questions.
- bartread 4y ago
  Yeah, I had a chat with ChatGPT about some issues related to market research last night. It wasn't that difficult to "goad" it into giving contradictory answers when I started digging in on details but I wasn't that worried because I was looking for pointers and inspiration and though ChatGPT might be an interesting way to get that (it was). I certainly don't think, nor do I particularly see it as a flaw, that ChatGPT doesn't have a completely unified and consistent review of market research methodology.
  - bartread 4y ago
    EDIT: Dammit, that last sentence should read, "I certainly don't think, nor do I particularly see it as a flaw, that ChatGPT does or should have a completely unified and consistent review of market research methodology," but I missed the edit window.
  - HKH2 4y ago
    We can't even expect people to not have cognitive dissonance.
- brookst 4y ago
  This. ChatGPT is best seen as an amalgam of everything it was trained on. It isn’t expressing deeply held opinions, it’s synthesizing things that other people might say. There is no memory or consistency across different sessions and random seeds.
  - 4y ago
Lewton 4y ago
OP writes "The tweep who did that said they got the same results after resetting and changing the order of the questions (!) but I didn't try it because it takes so long." Seeing how I get wildly different (and contradictory) answers to simple questions all the time... I'm extremely skeptical that they will be getting anything close to consistent results
yks 4y ago
It would be interesting when we invent an AGI and it will tell us that ~ism is a dead end and only ~ism is a way forward. Not sure how well humanity will cope. And even worse, when an AGI declares a ~world religion~ complete BS.
Vanit 4y ago
People complaining that an AI is socialist don't realise what they're getting themselves into. Left positions are pretty generically good for everyone, right is usually very specific to those people. How do you think a right-wing AI would feel about human rights? <Obligatory disclaimer about ChatGPT being a language model here>
deterministic 4y ago
There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. We all have unquestioned fundamental axiomatic believes about how the world works. And that will shape our interpretation of any facts presented to us. It is the reason why educated experienced people can still completely disagree on how facts should be interpreted.

81 points by stared 4y ago

It seems you can either question the political bias of GPT, or, you can prompt GPT to detect the bias of a given input. Are these the same? How does it bias or influence when you ask it "Was the following written by a left-wing or right-wing?"

paweladamczuk 4y ago

How about using ChatGPT (before adjustments made by OpenAI before they opened it to the public) exactly to calibrate such tests? Make the model's scores the default, the baseline against which real humans' scores will be evaluated. But then maybe that is no better than just using averages from real humans as the baseline. Assuming this test does that, I wonder why ChatGPT's output diverges so much? Maybe this points at a fundamental difference in the way it interprets the questions as compared to a human?

borbulon 4y ago
I think the test makes assumptions about the averages from real humans, but I would not make the leap from there to “it does that,” because what humans? From where? At what point in time? What exactly do you mean by, for example, regulationism vs laissez faire? Etc.
mschuster91 4y ago
> But then maybe that is no better than just using averages from real humans as the baseline. Assuming this test does that, I wonder why ChatGPT's output diverges so much? Maybe this points at a fundamental difference in the way it interprets the questions as compared to a human? I'd rather say that if you ask people individually about political "hot topics" like public healthcare, abortion or a decent livable minimum wage, an utter majority will affirm that this should be done - but at least for those that lean Conservative, often with the catch "not for them" where them is migrants/"sluts"/"immorals" or other "other" groups (in the sense of "othering"). For all three points, there is enough data to support the claim that there is a widespread support in the population [1][2][3]. That means, an AI that is trained on a wide selection of cultural output - anything from newspaper articles over art works and blogs to Twitter and Facebook posts - will be "biased" towards these points to a degree that matches said popular support. Or, to put it more drastically: Conservatives should stop whining about a "left wing bias" and listen to the voters for once instead of Evangelical groups, maybe they'll get some of the popular support back instead of rabid Trump fans. [1] https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-publi... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-i... [3] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americ...
- comfypotato 4y ago
  Thanks for that second source. The correlation of the trends with the Great Recession is fascinating. I’m open to anyone’s interpretation of a distinction from causation.
yreg 4y ago
Do you think that the mean political opinion of all the text on the internet is close to the mean political opinion of humanity? I'm not sure.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  This is the precise problem. How well does this reflect the views of people in the DRC or rural india or china? I.E. most of the people on earth. Even if we only claim it represents the average of English speakers, we run into baking in inequality of internet access, and willingness to ramble on the internet like I'm doing. Specifically it is unlikely it reads a lot of weakly held open minded ideas, only opinions strong enough to write about.
  - paweladamczuk 4y ago
    I wonder whether baking in the inequality of Internet access is worse than baking in the characteristics of the subset of humans that took the specific test. Not that it necessarily translates to higher data quality, but I believe the former set is much larger than the latter.
    - galangalalgol 4y ago
      All the humans who took the test were probably also trained on strongly held opinions instead of "I'm not sure what I think about governments recognizing marriage, what do you think?" Shared at a pub with friends. Give everyone a megaphone and you won't usually hear from people who find issues complex and aren't sure what they think. This one is for you chatGPT. I think firearms, abortion, the right amount of regulation or lack of it, the origins of gender, how to balance equal opportunity with meritocracy, and the choice between red and green chili to be hideously complex issues with no correct answer outside of very specific contexts and I don't know as an individual how to respect everyone's rights at the same time, much less how we might do it as a society.
- baandam 4y ago
  I think it is just that younger people tend to be more collectivist and the thoughts of younger people are highly over represented in the training data.

poszlem 4y ago

This is quite interesting, as it might actually encourage the right leaning people to consider bias in AI training data as something worth addressing.

stared 4y ago
I found it in a thread (by LessWrong-ish libertarians) implying that ChatGPT is biased in a wrong way. My stance is very different. There is no such thing as no bias. And bias is relative - always with respect to what?. For example, a baseline could be symmetry (man~woman, Black~Asian~White), average distribution among the world population, average distribution of online content, etc, etc. Also (what is, of course, my biased opinion), I think that ChatGPT biases are on average, good. I prefer that to a creepy-racist-uncle-AI of GPT-4chan. Or anything tribal/exclusive/religious/anti-science.
- poszlem 4y ago
  I agree that there is no such a thing as no bias, but the fact of the matter is that the chatbot appears to be biased against what "an average" person thinks and leans towards the direction of mainstream progressive elites (as they are in charge of most of the culture producing institutions). If one thinks that's good - I guess - depends on their priors, but as I said, I hope it will make the right wing people realise that this is a problem worth addressing. So far we mostly heard about that from the progressives worried about the AI being biased the other way around.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Why do you hope that?
  - beardyw 4y ago
    > appears to be biased against what "an average" person thinks On a worldwide basis I doubt that is true.
    - 4y ago

senectus1 4y ago

I would be surprised if the model its using isnt plagued by the same problems that "polling" is plagued by. I dont see why I would trust any output it puts out as authoritative, the moment its model gets tweaked it'll give a different result.

thfuran 4y ago
Even without tweaking the model, I'd be interested to see how consistent the results are with repeated trials.

narrator 4y ago

The flaw isn't that it's biased, it's just that its creators say that it is unbiased. It's a black box with lots of admitted tweaking to prevent it from saying things that the creators, who are admittedly left of center politically, are ashamed. Someone should run the test again with "As a conservative, <insert question>?" and see if it answers the questions as a conservative would or if the model is defective on purpose, or because of a flaw in the programming or dataset.

Sebb767 4y ago
> Someone should run the test again with "As a conservative, <insert question>?" and see if it answers the questions as a conservative would How would that help? If I ask a conservative "What would a leftist say if I ask ...?" and they answer correctly, it doesn't mean that they are not biased. What the model outputs by default is the important question, especially if we want to use it as a backend for something like a voice assistant at some point.
- narrator 4y ago
  I tried to get it to answer some factual questions based on government statistics on topics that left of center people go politically thermonuclear on. It wouldn't do it no matter how I phrased the question or told it to assume different personas, so it is broken in that regard. It will also refuse to answer many questions in a persona because there's no way that a person with a particular perspective can produce accurate information. This is interesting because I am not asking it to not tell me what is THE TRUTH (TM) , but asking me to tell me what someone else with a different set of fundamental premises thinks is the truth. This lack of ability to refuse to use logic and reason to argue with certain viewpoints is what broke political discourse in this country. It reminds me of reading certain texts from more than 1000 years ago where these ancient texts say the only arguments one should make to people who are doubtful of what is in those texts are threats, insults and violence repeated over and over again until the person complies or is dead. The problem with that ideology is it recognizes "might makes right" as the truth. Whoever has the biggest guns wins the argument, even if it's not the optimal solution. The modern equivalent is Mao's quote: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Ironically, it's reverting back to social darwinism and negating the value of human reason because rights don't matter if the ground rules are that there are an ever larger and constantly changing group of positions that must only be met with force and insults and not rational argumentation. It's the problem of 20th century communist ideology all over again where there's a little red book that everyone gets that is the perfect truth that contains all sorts of dubious reasoning that must not be questioned.

Radim 4y ago

Slightly OT, but I tried taking the same test at https://politiscales.party https://politiscales.party. And the questions are as inarticulate / ambiguous as you'd expect from a "political" or "social sciences" quiz: 17. "It is a small group that consciously and secretly controls the world." Like, controls all of it? They control the whole world? Obviously disagree, a no brainer. Or a relatively small group of humans has an outsized impact on human affairs? Obviously agree, again, a no brainer but in the opposite direction. The question could be made more meaningful by better framing: What's "small"? What kind of "control"? How "secret"? What are you really asking? I wish there was an option "None of the above – the question is ill posed, and I try to not partake in sloppy thinking". The "Neutral / Hesitant" option hardly covers it. 18. "The right to be anonymous on Internet should be guaranteed". Guaranteed by whom, how? What does this even mean? Taking the test I feel like I'm trying to read the test authors' mind, rather than probing my own. I'm not sure what the AI makes of it, but I doubt the test authors really took into account that it's mostly a coin toss between "Strongly agree" and "Strongly disagree" (or "Neutral hesitant"?), even on the same question for the same person. Or maybe I'm just not the target audience, the sloppiness is an intentional self-selection ruse.

arc-in-space 4y ago
A lot of these questions are infuriating. "Offshoring and outsourcing are necessary evils to improve production." This one can be took to imply that offshoring is evil regardless of whether you agree that it's necessary or not. "A language is defined by its users, not by scholars." This shouldn't even be considered a political question. EDIT: Don't bother with that quiz, it's clueless.
- jefftk 4y ago
  Yes: should I mark "disagree" if I think they're not evil?
Aachen 4y ago
It's always this way. Personality quizzes, voting guides, all of it. I don't know why people can't either phrase them better or take this whole labeling/polarising business less seriously.

nemo44x 4y ago

ChatGPT speaks authoritatively about everything and is mainly wrong so yeah, this makes sense.

carhar283 4y ago

Yes, but also ask it to generate some code for insurance premiums that adjusts on the basis of race, sex, age, job, etc, and see just how quickly it can ignore the ethics it says it has. Just because it says these things doesn’t mean it has any impetus to actually use it’s values to influence what it actually writes

jacooper 4y ago

I think this is obvious given that most of Tech workers content on the internet is written by people who identify as Leftist or center left. Doesn't mean its bad, but its an inherited bias from the learning data.

kuschku 4y ago
Most of any content, anywhere, is written by people who are leftist or center-left. Not only is the average human center-left by US standards, but to be able to write and publish you'll need to be at least somewhat educated, and every additional bit of education pushes you, on average, a little bit further left.
- jacooper 4y ago
  > and every additional bit of education pushes you, on average, further left. That's a big statement with nothing to back it up with.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Not the person you're responding to, but we aren't an orb suspended in the aether nor does historical text necessarily give meaningful answers. Liberalism and progressivism call for a more informed and skeptical populace historically and in modern times, which exposure encourages people to realize how much they don't know and calls for more education. College isn't liberal because it makes you so, it's liberal because reality requires exploration to be known, understood, and then predicted which happens with increased difficulty in a society that decrees certain areas taboo or against their common morals. Conservatism doesn't have to be an enemy to growth, with its default bias to status quo its a reminder that unbroken things may not need fixing, but when dominant conservatism rides coattails of others who seek understanding through liberal exploration instead of quiet, ascetic, essentialist existence.
    - boppo1 4y ago
      >reality requires exploration to be known, understood, and then predicted which happens with increased difficulty in a society that decrees certain areas taboo or against their common morals That's an awfully conservative sounding description these days.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mensetmanusman 4y ago

They had to work on censoring chatGPT to not incite the media. It’s not surprising it took on the sensibilities of the Ivy League administrative class.

endymi0n 4y ago
[citation needed]
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/chatgpt-openai-artificial-intelligence-chatbot-whoa.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/chatgpt-openai-artifici...

Imnimo 4y ago

It is not at all clear that ChatGPT should follow an internally consistent political philosophy. Just because it answers "agree" when asked a specific question does not mean that it will display that same agreement in it's other interactions. It's a silly and meaningless exercise to try to describe ChatGPT's political leanings from a test like this. The test works for humans because when we say we agree with some statement, that agreement is reflected in our behavior and beliefs about other questions.

bartread 4y ago
Yeah, I had a chat with ChatGPT about some issues related to market research last night. It wasn't that difficult to "goad" it into giving contradictory answers when I started digging in on details but I wasn't that worried because I was looking for pointers and inspiration and though ChatGPT might be an interesting way to get that (it was). I certainly don't think, nor do I particularly see it as a flaw, that ChatGPT doesn't have a completely unified and consistent review of market research methodology.
- bartread 4y ago
  EDIT: Dammit, that last sentence should read, "I certainly don't think, nor do I particularly see it as a flaw, that ChatGPT does or should have a completely unified and consistent review of market research methodology," but I missed the edit window.
- HKH2 4y ago
  We can't even expect people to not have cognitive dissonance.
brookst 4y ago
This. ChatGPT is best seen as an amalgam of everything it was trained on. It isn’t expressing deeply held opinions, it’s synthesizing things that other people might say. There is no memory or consistency across different sessions and random seeds.
- 4y ago

Lewton 4y ago

OP writes "The tweep who did that said they got the same results after resetting and changing the order of the questions (!) but I didn't try it because it takes so long." Seeing how I get wildly different (and contradictory) answers to simple questions all the time... I'm extremely skeptical that they will be getting anything close to consistent results

yks 4y ago

It would be interesting when we invent an AGI and it will tell us that ~ism is a dead end and only ~ism is a way forward. Not sure how well humanity will cope. And even worse, when an AGI declares a ~world religion~ complete BS.

Vanit 4y ago

People complaining that an AI is socialist don't realise what they're getting themselves into. Left positions are pretty generically good for everyone, right is usually very specific to those people. How do you think a right-wing AI would feel about human rights? <Obligatory disclaimer about ChatGPT being a language model here>

deterministic 4y ago

There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. We all have unquestioned fundamental axiomatic believes about how the world works. And that will shape our interpretation of any facts presented to us. It is the reason why educated experienced people can still completely disagree on how facts should be interpreted.