An AI, when presented with facts counter to what it thought it should say, agreed and basically went: “Won’t someone PLEASE think of the children!”
Love it.
I would imagine that any answer of ChatGPT on that topic is either (a) „hallucinated“ and not based on any verifiable fact or (b) scripted in by OpenAI.
The same question pops up for me whenever someone asks ChatGPT about the internals and workings of ChatGPT. Am I missing something?
I was curious about state persistence between prompt, or how to get my prompt better, or having a idea of the training data.
Only got crap and won’t spend time doing that again
For the most part it just regurgitated the corpo-speak with an odd sense of confidence. I know that’s the point of the model, but it can also be surprisingly honest when it incorporates what it knows about human motivation and business.
It’s pretty easy to have chatGPT contradict itself, point it out and have the LLM respond « well, I’m just generating text, nobody said it had to be correct »
It's easy to recognize and laugh at the AI replying with the preprogrammed narrative, I'm still waiting for the majority of people realizing they are given the same training materials, non-stop, with the same toxic narratives, and becoming programmed in the same way, and that is what results in their current worldview.
And no, it's not enough to be "skeptic" of mainstream media. It's not even enough to "validate" them. Or to go to other sources. You need to be reflective enough to realize that they a pushing a flawed reasoning methods, and then abusing them again and again, to get you used to their brand of reasoning.
Their brand of reasoning is just basically reasoning with brands. You're given negative sounding words for things they want you to think are bad, and positive sounding words for things they want you to think are good, and continuously reinforce these connections. They brand true democracy (literally rule of the people) as populism and tell you it's a bad thing. They brand freedom of speech as "misinformation". They brand freedom as "choice" so that you will not think of what you want to do, but which of the things they allow you to do will you do. Disagree with the scientific narrative? You're "science denier". Even as a professional scientist. Conspiracy theory isn't a defined word - it is a brand.
You're trained to judge goodness or badness instinctively by their frequency and peer pressure, and produce the explanation after your instinctive decision, instead of the other way around.
Excellent post, especially this part. Sums up the problem perfectly.
That was pretty much OpenAI's argument when they first published that GPT-3 paper. "Oh no so scary people might use it for wrong stuff, only we should have control of it."
In reality they just saw $$$ blink.