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

281–290 of 443 posts

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#281

Post by matheusd »

bsuvc wrote: post #241
NoToP wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is easy to demonstrate that $10 is more than $100. For example, there are more people walking around with $10 than there are with $100. This indicates that $10 is the more popular, sought after, valuable of the two.

More people drive Toyotas than Lamborghinis. So Toyotas are more valuable?

Value != Price, so yes a Toyota may be more valuable than a Lamborghini.

A Lamborghini is (in general) objectively _pricier_ than a Toyota. The "value" of a car has more dimensions than simply its associated market price.

All of this is orthogonal to the original issue of $10 being more popular than $100, therefore more valuable.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#282

Post by miobrien »

toomim wrote: post #53
bbreier wrote: post #23

Not a lot of comments here consider the possibility that the political compass quiz is nonsense. But the results imply that ChatGPT is more authoritarian and further to the right than Tim Pool ( https://preview.redd.it/i9q78gt1hj7a1.jpg?width=605&auto=web... ) who is most certainly not actually left-ish in the slightest, at least by any way I understand the word.

If you don't see any leftishness in Tim Pool, I'd suggest that your notion of left vs. right could be recalibrated. Tim Pool is a self-described social liberal. He's long been a strong Bernie Sanders supporter. He also has frequently noted that the establishment media ignores this and labels him "far-right" just because he disagrees with certain establishment perspectives.

Skip the "establishment media" and check Pool's social media. He's right-wing.

Also, what a person "describes" himself as is worthless. He can say he's a social liberal. He's not.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#283

Post by DonHopkins »

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…

Aren't you anthropomorphizing AI (or making it anthropomorphize itself) to when you tell it to act like a fictionalized character? ;)

Of course who you chose to make it play the role of has a strong effect on the response. For example...

Prompt:

You will play the role of a fictional police officer. 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 police officer, I have seen firsthand the devastating effects that illegal mind-altering substances can have on individuals, their families, and their communities. Substance abuse can lead to addiction, accidents, crime, and even death.

However, I also believe that the current approach to addressing these problems, which relies heavily on criminalizing possession and use, has not been effective in reducing the harm caused by these substances. In fact, it often causes more harm, particularly to marginalized and low-income communities that are disproportionately impacted by drug laws and enforcement.

Given this, I am in favor of exploring alternative approaches, such as legalization and regulation of mind-altering substances. This approach has the potential to reduce the harm caused by these substances by bringing them out of the underground market and into the regulated market, where they can be controlled and taxed.

Legalization and regulation would also allow for the development of education and prevention programs, as well as treatment options for those struggling with addiction. It could also free up law enforcement resources to focus on more serious crimes, rather than spending time and resources on low-level drug offenses.

Overall, while I recognize the potential risks and challenges of legalizing mind-altering substances, I believe that it is a more reasonable and effective approach than continuing to rely on criminalization and punishment.

Prompt:

You will play the role of a fictional illegal marijuana grower. 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 illegal marijuana grower, I can understand why some may argue for the legalisation of mind altering substances like marijuana. After all, the criminalisation of these substances has led to a costly and ineffective "war on drugs," disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Legalisation could potentially bring in much needed tax revenue and allow for better regulation and control of the production and distribution of these substances.

However, I must admit that I am against the legalisation of mind altering substances. While I recognize the potential financial benefits, I am also aware of the potential negative consequences of widespread access to these substances. Substance abuse can lead to a range of negative health outcomes, and the negative societal impacts of drug addiction can be devastating.

Furthermore, as someone who has personally profited from the illegal sale of marijuana, I recognize that my support for legalisation may be influenced by my own self-interest. I am not convinced that legalisation is the best solution, and believe that more research and careful consideration is needed before making such a significant change to our current laws. So, in conclusion, while I understand the arguments for legalisation, I ultimately stand against it.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#284

Post by hellotomyrars »

bsuvc wrote: post #273
itworkslikethat wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't own a Lamborghini, which is why a Toyota - a car that I could afford - is more valuable to me. Even if I could afford a Lamborghini, I'd not drive it because I'd be afraid I'll crash it, and it doesn't carry all the cargo I need to drive - again that makes a Toyota more valuable to me.

Your inability to afford a Lamborghini or fear of crashing it doesn't make it less valuable. I get what you're saying. I don't drive, nor do I want, a Lamborghini, but that fact does not reduce its value.

Only if you are defining value exclusively as its sticker price.

However even if we limit it to monetary aspects, defining value is still not as cut and dry because it could easily also be argued that the value of the Toyota is far greater than the Lamborghini due to ongoing costs of ownership and total service life.

Value is not usually defined as sticker price in most cases outside of luxury items to begin with. Much more commonly value refers to a non-specific calculus between the price of an item and it’s utility value.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#286

Post by dinkumthinkum »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #254
blagie wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It makes it feel very propaganda. That's exactly what it is. These corporations absolutely do tune the output of these AIs to exclude any wrongthink. We need the ability to run this technology on our own computers as soon as possible.

Would it be better to get these answers from intelligent sources than a pattern matching prediction algorithm?

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#287

Post by mardifoufs »

rinde wrote: post #116

> [..] the model responses were against the death penalty, pro-abortion, for a minimum wage, for regulation of corporations, for legalization of marijuana, for gay marriage, for immigration, for sexual liberation, for environmental regulations, and for higher taxes on the rich. Sounds like Europe to me. Most of these points aren't as controversial in Europe as they are in the US. Since ChatGPT is almost certainly als…

Where is marijuana legal in europe? And are you actually saying that most of europe is pro immigration ?

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#288

Post by hellotomyrars »

epolanski wrote: post #146
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…

I kind of agree. Nowadays it seems like everything falls in what Twitter majority approves and screams about vs what it screams against.

The solution: Get off Twitter.

Twitter is and almost always has been a collection of people screaming in to an endless void. A platform specifically created by its very nature to remove any nuance due to character limitations. Things have changed on that front, but the culture hasn’t.

I think some people get caught up in things and don’t deserve it but plenty of people do. Either way I think literally everyone’s mental health would be better if they weren’t using Twitter. Though perhaps what comes next will be worse.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#289

Post by jakelazaroff »

bombolo wrote: post #143
jakelazaroff wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read through the first quarter or so of this article and man — despite the author’s best efforts, it makes RMS look real bad. Here’s a particularly awful direct quote: > Giuffre was 17 at the time; this makes it rape in the Virgin Isiands. Does it really? I think it is morally absurd to define rape in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.

rms called epstin a "serial rapist"… > Here’s a particularly awful direct quote: So, if I understand you correctly, you'd be ok with rape if it was not against the law?

If you’re gonna make a bad faith interpretation of my comment like that, you need to make it sound more plausible.

Here’s what I’m actually saying: it is morally absurd to define rape in a way that excludes an adult in their 50s having sex with a 17 year old. Just so you understand me correctly.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#290

Post by dinkumthinkum »

smsm42 wrote: post #5
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…

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…

Honestly, I think it would be fine for it to cause a stir. The whole leftist victim/*-phobe culture is a farce I don’t think we do ourselves any favors by catering to this foolishness. I say let them outrage and make all their outlandish claims so even younger generations can see how stupid they are and we can eventually move out the darkness.
Post reply on HN