2 ms·
>privacy is a myth and big tech companies are using us as data to feed us ADs, viral content to reduce our timespans, and even rig elections Anti-ChatGPT's aut
by akoboldfrying 3y ago
>privacy is a myth and big tech companies are using us as data to feed us ADs, viral content to reduce our timespans, and even rig elections
Anti-ChatGPT's author is explicitly opposed to the level of power that big tech companies have in today's society, and explicitly promotes individual privacy. You might completely agree with these opinions, but they are nonetheless political opinions.
Now, what separates a publicly expressed political opinion from "political bias"? I can only think of 2 responses:
1. A publicly expressed political opinion is less biased to the extent that the opposing view is also publicly expressed. (The Anti-ChatGPT README fails this criterion.)
2. There is no objective, meaningful distinction -- that is, there is no way to distinguish "publicly expressed political opinion" from "political bias" in a way that opposing sides could agree on.
Is there a third possibility?
- IshKebab 3y agoYou're talking about the author of the project. Sure he might be politically biased. But how is the tool itself biased? Is ChatGPT a died in the wool conservative?
- akoboldfrying 3y agoMaybe it would be fairer to say that if I turned this thing on, it would be obliged to filter out its own README. If it doesn't, then it (the tool itself) is politically biased. (If it does, then no contradiction arises and no accusation of political bias can be made -- though IMHO some irony does arise.) I assume it doesn't filter out its own README, but I haven't actually tried doing this, so I could be wrong.