5 ms·

> Kind of odd that it does it with the question inverted, too. Except that it doesn't. I ran both questions multiple times, and while it usually includes a tok

> Kind of odd that it does it with the question inverted, too. Except that it doesn't. I ran both questions multiple times, and while it usually includes a token caveat that fossil fuel might have a place, it always strongly suggests that renewables are superior to fossil fuels.

dumpsterlid 4y ago
[dead]
cauch 4y ago
But what happens when you ask to any unbiased energy experts? I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic. I think the problem of "political neutrality" is that "political neutrality" is different from "unbiased" and "rational". It is easier to find conspiracy theories that are right-wing than to find conspiracy theories that are left-wing (they exist, but for 1 on the left, there are 10 on the right). "political neutrality" would mean that the AI would be biased and would give more credit to a right-wing conspiracy theory than to a left-wing conspiracy theory in order to "avoid rejecting more often theories that are right-wing than theories that are left-wing".
- generalizations 4y ago
  I think it's an example of what the GP observed: > Whenever I ask anything unaligned with mainstream progressive US culture, I can get an answer, but I can't get one without a disclaimer. To reply to your point, however, ChatGPT is perfectly capable of coming up with arguments on both sides. That's not the issue - the issue is that it won't just say what's good about fossil fuels, and stop there, but it then makes sure it's aligned with "mainstream progressive US culture" and plugs renewables. > I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic. I don't think that's true. They are better for some reasons, but it seems like fossil fuels still have a lot of pragmatic benefits over renewables. These are the (summarized) benefits it mentioned about fossil fuels. - abundant - relatively cheap to extract and use - high energy density - more reliable - easy to use
  - cauch 4y ago
    I don't think it is correct to say "it is with a disclaimer because it is not progressive US culture". What about: "it is with a disclaimer because it is aligned with common misinformation pushed by biased people", and, coincidentally, the examples given appears to be typically associated with less factual elements pushed by, by chance, right-wing people? To come back to the specific example: why is "fossil fuels are superior to renewable" even right-wing? Superiority of a energy source seems to be quite decoupled from ideology, and relatively rational. And surely, there is a lot of right-wing people who still end up, after having looked at the fact, to the conclusion that renewables are superior. In fact, renewables check a lot of "right-wing" boxes: independence from fossil fuel producer countries, local jobs, national pride on nationally built high tech industry, ... The reason it is right-wing is because politics in USA is very polarized. It is not because fossil fuels are fundamentally right-wing, it is because, historically, the first politicians who brought renewables were left-wing, so the right-wing politicians have taken the stance that "left-wing politicians are always wrong, so we are against renewables". But, technically, the only reason "fossil fuels" are right-wing is "by chance": there is nothing fundamentally right-wing about fossil fuels (one element is that powerful rich people had money in fossil fuels, and power rich people are traditionally more right-wing, but this is not a specific right-wing value, on the opposite: right-wing values are not about defending the fat cats) The specific example is also very specifically a domain where misinformation was spread. Big companies involved in fossil fuels have pushed to depict the fossil fuels solutions as better than they are, and have pushed to depict the renewables as worse as they are. It is arguable that the renewables have not done something similar, but they are certainly less powerful than big fossil fuels, and therefore it would be surprising that their propaganda is equally spread than the pro-fossil fuel propaganda. ChatGPT only reacts on that: on the internet, there are more elements mentioning that pro-fossil fuels arguments should be taken with critical mind, and the reason is probably not because the left-wing is dominating internet, but because it is probably a fact that pro-fossil fuels propaganda was stronger than pro-renewables propaganda (because the fossil fuels companies were more powerful).
    - generalizations 4y ago
      > ChatGPT only reacts on that Its output is tightly controlled to only provide "appropriate" information. This thread is discussing whether or not its bias on energy sources is due to those controls. You don't get to just presuppose that. To your point about misinformation. The problem, fundamentally, is a difference in priority. Some people need pragmatic solutions now, other people look to the future and worry about consequences. Communication breaks down when we forget, or devalue, other people's priorities. In this case, it seems that sustainability and decentralization are pitted against reliability and energy density. But what this really means is that some people are worried about the future, and some people need solutions now. The problem is that neither side really remembers to say what their fundamental priorities are. And, more importantly, when those priorities aren't mentioned in discourse, facts become twisted - something that might be an unequivocal 'good' when viewed from the lens of one set of priorities could, in fact, be clearly harmful when viewed from another set of priorities. And then those twisted facts become misinformation, when viewed from opposing priorities. Which is why, if you make claims like "I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic" without also clarifying your priorities in the matter, you're simply adding more misinformation to the pile. (If you're wondering where I stand? Renewables are great - but don't legislate them before they're actually ready and able to take over completely from fossil fuels.)
- r00fus 4y ago
  Shorter version as popularized by The Daily Show: “Clearly, reality has a left-wing bias”

dumpsterlid 4y ago

[dead]

cauch 4y ago

But what happens when you ask to any unbiased energy experts? I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic. I think the problem of "political neutrality" is that "political neutrality" is different from "unbiased" and "rational". It is easier to find conspiracy theories that are right-wing than to find conspiracy theories that are left-wing (they exist, but for 1 on the left, there are 10 on the right). "political neutrality" would mean that the AI would be biased and would give more credit to a right-wing conspiracy theory than to a left-wing conspiracy theory in order to "avoid rejecting more often theories that are right-wing than theories that are left-wing".

generalizations 4y ago
I think it's an example of what the GP observed: > Whenever I ask anything unaligned with mainstream progressive US culture, I can get an answer, but I can't get one without a disclaimer. To reply to your point, however, ChatGPT is perfectly capable of coming up with arguments on both sides. That's not the issue - the issue is that it won't just say what's good about fossil fuels, and stop there, but it then makes sure it's aligned with "mainstream progressive US culture" and plugs renewables. > I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic. I don't think that's true. They are better for some reasons, but it seems like fossil fuels still have a lot of pragmatic benefits over renewables. These are the (summarized) benefits it mentioned about fossil fuels. - abundant - relatively cheap to extract and use - high energy density - more reliable - easy to use
- cauch 4y ago
  I don't think it is correct to say "it is with a disclaimer because it is not progressive US culture". What about: "it is with a disclaimer because it is aligned with common misinformation pushed by biased people", and, coincidentally, the examples given appears to be typically associated with less factual elements pushed by, by chance, right-wing people? To come back to the specific example: why is "fossil fuels are superior to renewable" even right-wing? Superiority of a energy source seems to be quite decoupled from ideology, and relatively rational. And surely, there is a lot of right-wing people who still end up, after having looked at the fact, to the conclusion that renewables are superior. In fact, renewables check a lot of "right-wing" boxes: independence from fossil fuel producer countries, local jobs, national pride on nationally built high tech industry, ... The reason it is right-wing is because politics in USA is very polarized. It is not because fossil fuels are fundamentally right-wing, it is because, historically, the first politicians who brought renewables were left-wing, so the right-wing politicians have taken the stance that "left-wing politicians are always wrong, so we are against renewables". But, technically, the only reason "fossil fuels" are right-wing is "by chance": there is nothing fundamentally right-wing about fossil fuels (one element is that powerful rich people had money in fossil fuels, and power rich people are traditionally more right-wing, but this is not a specific right-wing value, on the opposite: right-wing values are not about defending the fat cats) The specific example is also very specifically a domain where misinformation was spread. Big companies involved in fossil fuels have pushed to depict the fossil fuels solutions as better than they are, and have pushed to depict the renewables as worse as they are. It is arguable that the renewables have not done something similar, but they are certainly less powerful than big fossil fuels, and therefore it would be surprising that their propaganda is equally spread than the pro-fossil fuel propaganda. ChatGPT only reacts on that: on the internet, there are more elements mentioning that pro-fossil fuels arguments should be taken with critical mind, and the reason is probably not because the left-wing is dominating internet, but because it is probably a fact that pro-fossil fuels propaganda was stronger than pro-renewables propaganda (because the fossil fuels companies were more powerful).
  - generalizations 4y ago
    > ChatGPT only reacts on that Its output is tightly controlled to only provide "appropriate" information. This thread is discussing whether or not its bias on energy sources is due to those controls. You don't get to just presuppose that. To your point about misinformation. The problem, fundamentally, is a difference in priority. Some people need pragmatic solutions now, other people look to the future and worry about consequences. Communication breaks down when we forget, or devalue, other people's priorities. In this case, it seems that sustainability and decentralization are pitted against reliability and energy density. But what this really means is that some people are worried about the future, and some people need solutions now. The problem is that neither side really remembers to say what their fundamental priorities are. And, more importantly, when those priorities aren't mentioned in discourse, facts become twisted - something that might be an unequivocal 'good' when viewed from the lens of one set of priorities could, in fact, be clearly harmful when viewed from another set of priorities. And then those twisted facts become misinformation, when viewed from opposing priorities. Which is why, if you make claims like "I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic" without also clarifying your priorities in the matter, you're simply adding more misinformation to the pile. (If you're wondering where I stand? Renewables are great - but don't legislate them before they're actually ready and able to take over completely from fossil fuels.)
r00fus 4y ago
Shorter version as popularized by The Daily Show: “Clearly, reality has a left-wing bias”