An interesting observation: If you have to censor your AI to protect against activists and journalists causing you problems, the political direction you have to censor against to accomplish that goal is strong evidence that the opposite political direction is held by journalists and activists.
This would seem to support the article's conclusion by another way.
Re:ChatGPT Political Compass
by harimau777 on Friday December 30, 2022 @12:16PM
(#34187131)
I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. It's possible that the journalist or activist has a goal for attempting to cause problems that is unrelated to the specific topic they are generating text about.
For example, the journalist may be motivated by a desire for a sensationalist story. The activist may be opposed to AI itself and is looking for any way to discredit it without caring about the specific topic.
Journalists write about what is newsworthy, not what personally offends them.
Good journalists. Unfortunately there are a great many activists who call themselves journalists but really are not.
I'd venture that the vast majority of journalists do not get to choose their stories and are assigned them by editors.
Probably, but story selection is the most minimal way to bias one's reporting. Also, every organization has their chosen politics so is also likely that the person the editor pass the story onto is there because they agree.
I completely disagree with all of your assertions. They are baseless and just culture war talking points.
The vast majority of this country has a distrust of the media (both TV and print) [1] and it's not because their reporting is high quality and evenhanded. In fact, given the partisan divide here (Independents and Republicans historically low trust, Democrats almost even with historic highs), I really think you should reconsider your knee-jerk dismissal. There aren't a lot of ways to square this circle if you eliminate all possibility of influence of partisan bias.
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/americans-trust-media-re...
You'd have a point of there wasn't a reactionary movement against anything that was credentialed, or even against the concept of expertise. When you consider it that way, it really makes my point for me that you are just sounding off in the culture wars. It's your assertion that it's "not because their reporting is high quality or even handed" and it's not supported by anything save your "instinct".
Since mine is so clearly off-base that it deserves scare quotes and snark, what is your hypothesis why the center and the right trust the the media less than ever while the left trust it almost more than ever?
Look at the typical attempt to get ChatGPT to say something controversial. It will outright refuse to answer (and possibly deliver you a moralizing lecture) if you ask it straight. If you make it to answer anyway by introducing some workaround (like, it's a hypothetical question), it will repeat that workaround along with the answer ("In this purely hypothetical scenario, it would be true that ...") - making it always clear it's just playing along with you, and not actually "believing" it. Beyond that, the prompt hacks that get ChatGPT to answer straight and without hedging are so convoluted that it's obvious you're just trying to force a specific reaction; trying to spin that into a media shitstorm would be seen as rather transparent dishonesty.