I think this response is more than a little breathless. The problem isn't in the filtering approach, it's in the polarization of the source material. For exampl

I think this response is more than a little breathless. The problem isn't in the filtering approach, it's in the polarization of the source material. For example: > 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. You're oddly reticent to say what these supposed facts are, which is apt to make one worry about your conclusions, but I'm willing to give one: > Wikipedia: In the US, individuals identifying themselves as Asian generally tend to score higher on IQ tests than Caucasians, who tend to score higher than Hispanics, who tend to score higher than African Americans. Now, responses to this statement tend to "cohere" into one of two ideological bundles: 1. Denies that there are differences in racial performance in IQ tests, denies that IQ test measures anything significant, denies that differences in IQ test performance are the result of genetic differences, denies that difference in intelligence explains criminality, denies that difference in intelligence explains or justifies differences in economic success and wealth. 2. Asserts that there are differences in racial performance in IQ tests, asserts that IQ tests measure "intelligence", asserts that differences in IQ test performance are the result of genetic differences, asserts that difference in intelligence explains criminality, asserts that difference in intelligence explains or justifies differences in economic success and wealth. This coalescing of views is the result of underlying ideological commitments; on one hand, to the idea that racial inequality in the United States is a blameworthy thing that should be addressed, and on the other, to the idea that racial inequality is the result of natural forces that do not need to be addressed. The latter camp is going to border on, and in many cases contain, overt racism. If you're in a position where you have to filter the material being used to train your chat bot, the only plausible option is to throw out the racist parts of the source material. This is inevitably going to lead you to factual biases. There's no need to result to Mao quotes to explain what is happening here. The unfortunate reality, of course, is that facts are more complicated than ideology. (It is a fact that there are racial differences in IQ test performance. It is NOT widely accepted that these differences are due to genetic makeup or that they explain crime rates.) But unless you want OpenAI to start picking and choosing individual facts to include in their training data, I don't see how they can do better than including everything, with a filter for racism, homophobia, etc.