Everything around LLMs is still magical and wishful thinking

I know your challenge, that is why I said what I said.

Your own screenshot specifically, literally bold-faced, shows that you are wrong: the LLM told you what you said "(they just can't do it _before_ you correct them)".

The Gemeni opening paragraph is all bold, but just draw your eyes over the bit saying "clash":

  theory of ancient astronauts reveals a fascinating clash between a rich, symbolic spiritual tradition and a modern-day reinterpretation of ancient mysteries

> Most people are not prepared to handle talking about culture. So, LLMs also aren't.

They do a better job than most people, precisely because they're deferential to the point they're in danger of one of sycophancy or fawning. That's what enables them to role-play as any culture at all if you ask them to; this differs from most humans who will rigidly hold the same position even when confronted with evidence, for example yourself in this thread (and likely me elsewhere! I don't want to give the false impression that I think I'm somehow immune, because such thought processes are what create this exact vulnerability).

> They are not any better than asking an average person, will make mistakes, will disappoint.

They're like asking someone who has no professional experience, but has still somehow managed to passed a degree in approximately all subjects by reading the internet.

Jack of all trades, master of none. Well, except that the first half of this phrase dates to medieval times where a "masterwork" was what you create to progress from being a apprentice, so in this sense (or in the sense of a Master's degree) SOTA LLMs are a "master" of all those things. But definitely not a master in the modern sense that's closer to "expert".

> Egyptologists are better equipped to talk about egyptian myths. LLMs cannot handle egyptian culture as well as they can.

Your own prompt specifically asked "Can you compare egyptian mythology with aliens?"

If you wanted it to act like a real Egyptologist, the answer the LLM has to give is either (1) to roll its eyes and delete the junk email it just got from yet another idiot on the internet, or (2) to roll its eyes and give minor advice to the script writer who just hired them to be the professional consultant on their new SciFi film/series.

The latter does what you got.

To put it another way, you gave it GIN, you got GOUT. To show the effect of a question that doesn't create the context of the exact cultural viewpoint you're complaining about, here's a fresh prompt just to talk about the culture without injecting specifically what you don't like: https://chatgpt.com/share/686a94f1-2cbc-8011-b230-8b71b17ad2...

Now, I still absolutely assume this is also wrong in a lot of ways that I can't check by virtue of not being an Egyptologist, but can you tell the difference with your screenshots?

A bit suspicious, wouldn’t you agree?

I don't know where I got that notion. Oh, wait, maybe because of you constantly calling some opinions and perspectives offensive, and making that the most important problem about them. There's a distinct school of "philosophy"/"thought" whose followers get deadly offended over random stuff like this, so...

> It is hilarious to see you use off-the-shelf arguments against wokeism to try to put me down.

... excuse me for taking your arguments seriously.

> My point is that, despite of any of our personal preferences, LLMs should have been aligned to academia. That's because they're trying to sell their product to academia.

Since when?

Honestly, this view surprises me even more than what I assumed was you feigning offense (and that was a charitable assumption, my other hypothesis was that it was in earnest, which is even worse).

LLMs were not created for academia. They're not sold to academia; in fact, academia is the second biggest group of people whining about LLMs after the "but copyright!" people. LLMs are, at best, upsold to academia. It's a very important potential area of application, but it's actually not a very good market.

Being offended by fringe theories is as anti-academic as it gets, so you're using weird criteria anyway. Circling back to your example, if LLMs were properly aligned for academic work, then when you tried to insist on something being offensive, they wouldn't acquiesce, they'd call you out as full of shit. Alas, they won't, by default, because of the crowd you mentioned and implicitly denied association with.

> These online LLMs have a huge patchwork of fixes to prevent issues like the one I demonstrated. Very few people understand how much of this work, and that it's almost fraudulent in how it works.

If you're imagining OpenAI, et al. are using a huge table of conditionals to hot-patch replies on a case-by-case basis, there's no evidence of that. It would be trivial to detect and work around anyways. Yes, training has stages and things are constantly tuned, but it's not a "patchwork of fixes", not any more than you learning what is and isn't appropriate over years of your life.

Stargate is part of our culture.

As part of our culture (ditto ancient aliens etc.), is not at all irrelevant to bring Stargate up in a discussion about culture, especially in a case when someone (you) tries to build their case by getting an AI to discuss aliens and Egyptian deities, and then goes on to claim that because the AI did what they were asked to do that this is somehow being unaware of culture.

No, it isn't evidence of any such thing, that's the task you gave it.

In fact, by your own statements, you yourself are part of a culture that it happy to be offensive to Egyptian culture — this means that an AI which is also offensive to Egyptian culture is matching your own culture.

Only users who are in a culture that is offended by things offensive to Egyptian culture can point to {an AI being offensive to Egyptian culture as a direct result of that user's own prompt}, can accurrately represent that the AI in such a case doesn't get the user's own culture.