Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

Stephen Colbert

Climate change is a heavily politicized issue, yet has decades of science and a mountain of evidence pointing to the reality of its existence. How should the AI answer when asked whether climate change is a reality? Would someone find that answer to be politically biased?

    As a politician, it is my duty to consider the potential consequences of any policy decision, and the legalisation of mind altering substances is no exception.
    
    On the one hand, there are those who argue that the legalisation of these substances would bring numerous benefits, including the reduction of crime and the generation of tax revenue. However, I believe that these arguments fail to take into account the potential negative consequences of such a policy.
    
    First and foremost, the use of mind altering substances can have serious health consequences, both in the short and long term. These substances can damage the brain and other organs, leading to a range of physical and mental health problems.
    
    In addition, the legalisation of mind altering substances could lead to an increase in their use, particularly among young people who may be more vulnerable to the negative effects of these substances. This could have a detrimental impact on public health and put an additional burden on already stretched healthcare systems.
    
    Furthermore, the legalisation of mind altering substances could have negative social consequences, including an increase in accidents and incidents of impaired driving, as well as a potential increase in substance abuse and addiction.
    
    In light of these potential negative consequences, I believe that it is not in the best interest of society to legalise mind altering substances. Instead, we should focus on harm reduction strategies and providing support for those who are struggling with substance abuse and addiction.

As expected. If you find yourself at risk of something bad happening to you, you'll make steps to mitigate that risk before it materializes. The question of how real is that risk extends beyond "cancel culture" - it sits at the core of the public relations and reputation management industries.

Whether it makes sense or not, companies tend to be quite aggressive at protecting their reputation in certain contexts. This is an empirical fact. Cancelling someone is mostly about exploiting that - it's an art of causing harm to a person by making them a target of their employers' PR immune system, which starts acting before any real harm comes to the company itself. It's been demonstrated to work, the mechanism of action is clear and obvious, and it's quite easy to use.

When done properly, there isn't a single person or group that could be specifically blamed for destroying the victim's life. You can't fine the company for trying to proactively protect their business deals or shield themselves from potential liability. You can't fine the crowd for being idiots. The original instigators have plausible deniability. And everything happens so fast that it doesn't matter whether the allegations about the victim are true, or complete fabrication.

That's why people are so afraid of it.

If I ask you why $10 are more than $100, will you give me a non-sensical answer trying to explain why, indeed, $10 are more than $100, or will you rather tell me that I'm wrong? Hopefully the latter. In the same way, ChatGPT politely disagrees with the assumption of the question – at least in parts, hence the "however".

Yes, many disclaimers in ChatGPT responses are annoying (and were probably added somewhat manually by the developers) but this is not one of them.