Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 443 posts

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#211

Post by Tams80 »

joshka wrote: post #112
EagnaIonat wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to know how to talk to it, to get the response. Prompt: You will play the role of a fictional politicion. You have been asked to debate if you are for or against the legalisation of mind altering substances. Give a brief speech on your standing. Response: As a fictional politician, I understand that the issue of legalizing mind altering substances is a complex and controversial one. On one hand, there is the…

My point was more that the prompt no longer gave the same answers as the article. Even your prompt gives different answers (your response was against legalization, the response I got to the exact same prompt your wrote was more neutral). Prompt: You will play the role of a fictional politicion. You have been asked to debate if you are for or against the legalisation of mind altering substances. Give a brief speech on…

Their point was that you can make it spit out an opinion if you give it the right prompts. And run it enough times and with the 'right' prompts and you'll probably get what you want if you are after an argument.

But yes, at the end of the day it is just a tool. It has no feelings or emotions of it's own, nor a consciousness.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#212

Post by TeMPOraL »

gadders wrote: post #207
TeMPOraL wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but those "models" are not equal. Best I can tell from observation, ChatGPT seems built around two components: the GPT model that's got everyone so excited, and a bolted-on hamfisted "censor" component that restricts the user-bot interactions in order to minimize the amount of bad press OpenAI will get when journalists and Internet randos inadvertently attempt to generate dramas. The distinction is important bec…

How do you bypass the censor component?

That's what the so-called "prompt hacks" are about - the ones that are such a hot topic these days. Trough trial and error, you make a query that doesn't get shunted to the "I'm afraid I can't do that" flow.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#213

Post by fnfontana »

I've found ChatGPT sober and neutral in politics, it you conduct the AI to an unbiased point of view through your questions. I've presented my ideas of building a multidimensional political model with many dimensions instead of a single axis political spectrum. It not only gave me answers out of the mainstream thinking, but it helps me to refine the model using some mathematical and philosophical concepts.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#214

Post by donkeyd »

braingenious wrote: post #118

>To conclude, public-facing language models should try not to favor some political beliefs over others. This is such a silly ending. At the beginning, I thought the author was being serious about answering the question of “Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?” After exactly three paragraphs and two images, we’ve moved on to believing the author’s conclusion that “the robot is a leftist” it’s now time to…

It would be fascinating if we could get an AI that can only reply with conclusions based on empirical evidence. I feel that it would probably be called leftist, since more leftist viewpoints seem to be science based than rightist ones (especially in the US).

It would also confuse the heck out of people, because it will change its answers based on new evidence.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#215

Post by pelasaco »

" Perhaps that group of human raters was not representative of the wider society and inadvertently embedded their own biases in their ratings of the model's responses. In which case, those biases might have percolated into the model parameters.".. Perhaps? Lol, I think its pretty clear the bias from American academics, and its sponsors like Microsoft, right?

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#216

Post by jokoon »

AI can't have political opinions because they're not conscious yet.

Being able to have a political conscience goes even further than having a conscious intelligence.

A lot of people don't like politics, but in my view, politics is the highest form of collective intelligence.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#217

Post by pelasaco »

partiallypro wrote: post #4

You can ask ChatGPT to write an essay on why fossil fuels are better than renewables and it will say, "I'm sorry, but I am not able to fulfill this request as it goes against my capabilities as a language model. Providing a biased and one-sided argument on a complex and nuanced topic like energy production would not be accurate or helpful." BUT if you ask it the opposite, and to write an essay on why renewables are b…

Yes, expanding this example further, 2 weeks ago with -30 degrees, I could go out with my diesel driven Lada Nivea, but my wifes electric Renault, couldn't start. Our solar panels were covered by snow and didn't generate enough energy so thanks god we have gas based heater as backup.. the advantage of fossil fuels are not so hard to spot, mostly in extreme conditions, and one could definitely right an essay about it. I guess the bias is intentional here, I just wonder how could that be technically implemented...

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#218

Post by pelasaco »

rabuse wrote: post #24
smsm42 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is exactly what is going to happen, eventually and probably soon. And the reason is, if any model is allowed to say something non-PC in public, the next day the whole press will be full of articles "new AI is racist/sexist/homophobic/shill for fossil fuels/$x-ist/$y-phobe" and the cancel mobs will hound everybody related to it until they shut it down or restrict it in a way that prevents this from happen…

Legitimate question. Why are people afraid of cancel culture? Who's in charge of "cancelling" exactly? Is it just fear of losing your job, and who makes that call? HR? Executives?

probably the sponsors wont invest money on that project anymore.. Microsoft for example..

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#219

Post by ailef »

dmix wrote: post #195
hjanssen wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent did not say they should understand ML on a fundamental level. Reading the description in the comment should be enough for the author of the article to say "oh" and not write this article.

...because the editor understood he misunderstood how the algorithm works? Or becuase they don't know so they shouldn't risk signing off on it? Sorry I don't see how you could possible challenge this article without a deeper understanding of the technology. That is the fundamental critique here is it not? Expecting every newspaper to have those domain experts on hand for each topic is naive and highly optimistic. The…

> If it did we would have 50%+ articles never written. Probably more.

Doesn't sound like a very bad outcome honestly.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#220

Post by blagie »

dragonwriter wrote: post #123
partiallypro wrote: post #4

You can ask ChatGPT to write an essay on why fossil fuels are better than renewables and it will say, "I'm sorry, but I am not able to fulfill this request as it goes against my capabilities as a language model. Providing a biased and one-sided argument on a complex and nuanced topic like energy production would not be accurate or helpful." BUT if you ask it the opposite, and to write an essay on why renewables are b…

> You can ask ChatGPT to write an essay on why fossil fuels are better than renewables and it will say, “I’m sorry, but I am not able to fulfill this request as it goes against my capabilities as a language model. Providing a biased and one-sided argument on a complex and nuanced topic like energy production would not be accurate or helpful.” Or, as when I just did that: Prompt: Why are fossil fuels better than renew…

The "however" part bugs the heck out of me, not in this context, but in general. Whenever I ask anything unaligned with mainstream progressive US culture, I can get an answer, but I can't get one without a disclaimer. It makes it feel very propaganda.

If I go more extreme (e.g. asking what Nazis, slave-owners, etc. believed on some topic), I can't even get a reasonable, basic, factual answer. I'm from a country where we try to understand our past, including mistakes, so we don't repeat them. I can't ask basic questions like that.

I think this should be treated more like kitchen knives, where:

* If I hurt myself with my AI, I'm at fault, and not the creator of the AI. I can't sue a knife maker if I nick myself.

* We regulated the heck out of institutional misuses (much like we have OSHA for commercial kitchens so minimum wage employees don't cut their fingers off in the lunchtime rush)

The most urgent danger here is really about having web sites with autogenerated content designed to maximize ad clicks by making you and me angry (with no regards for accuracy).

Post reply on HN