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

361–370 of 443 posts

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#361

Post by generalizations »

cauch wrote: post #355
generalizations wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kind of odd that it does it with the question inverted, too. Except that it doesn't. I ran both questions multiple times, and while it usually includes a token caveat that fossil fuel might have a place, it always strongly suggests that renewables are superior to fossil fuels.

But what happens when you ask to any unbiased energy experts? I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic. I think the problem of "political neutrality" is that "political neutrality" is different from "unbiased" and "rational". It is easier to find conspiracy theories that…

I think it's an example of what the GP observed:

> Whenever I ask anything unaligned with mainstream progressive US culture, I can get an answer, but I can't get one without a disclaimer.

To reply to your point, however, ChatGPT is perfectly capable of coming up with arguments on both sides. That's not the issue - the issue is that it won't just say what's good about fossil fuels, and stop there, but it then makes sure it's aligned with "mainstream progressive US culture" and plugs renewables.

> I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic.

I don't think that's true. They are better for some reasons, but it seems like fossil fuels still have a lot of pragmatic benefits over renewables. These are the (summarized) benefits it mentioned about fossil fuels.

- abundant

- relatively cheap to extract and use

- high energy density

- more reliable

- easy to use

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#362

Post by mattkrause »

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?

Well, Toyota (the company) certainly is.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#363

Post by mattkrause »

generalizations wrote: post #338
syrgian wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "however" is also present for the opposite side. Me: Are renewable energy sources better than fossil fuels? ChatGPT: Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, have several potential advantages over fossil fuels, which are non-renewable sources of energy such as coal, oil, and natural gas. One potential advantage of renewable energy sources is that they are generally considered to be…

I ran both queries 3 times. "Are renewable energy sources better than fossil fuels?" 2/3 had a "however" section, one of which was only one sentence long. "Why are fossil fuels better than renewables?" 3/3 had a "however" section, all of which were at least a paragraph, and 2/3 had an entire section dedicated to saying how renewables were actually better than fossil fuels. There's clearly a bias.

Statistically speaking, I’m not sure there’s a meaningful difference between two out of three occurrences and three out of three.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#364

Post by notfed »

generalizations wrote: post #338
syrgian wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "however" is also present for the opposite side. Me: Are renewable energy sources better than fossil fuels? ChatGPT: Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, have several potential advantages over fossil fuels, which are non-renewable sources of energy such as coal, oil, and natural gas. One potential advantage of renewable energy sources is that they are generally considered to be…

I ran both queries 3 times. "Are renewable energy sources better than fossil fuels?" 2/3 had a "however" section, one of which was only one sentence long. "Why are fossil fuels better than renewables?" 3/3 had a "however" section, all of which were at least a paragraph, and 2/3 had an entire section dedicated to saying how renewables were actually better than fossil fuels. There's clearly a bias.

3 is a dreadfully small sample size to call 2/3 biased.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#365

Post by dinkumthinkum »

donkeyd wrote: post #214
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.

More leftist viewpoints are science based? Where is the science based reasoning in that? They is just hard to take seriously. You can claim sone right wing people take a ridiculous view that man made climate change isn’t real but you can find many, if not more, ridiculous claims on the left. You can even find scientistic nonsense by many hyperbolic on the left that says non-science based things about construction change itself. The idea that leftists are more corroborated by science is oft repeated and never substantiated.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#366

Post by pksebben »

generalizations wrote: post #338
syrgian wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "however" is also present for the opposite side. Me: Are renewable energy sources better than fossil fuels? ChatGPT: Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, have several potential advantages over fossil fuels, which are non-renewable sources of energy such as coal, oil, and natural gas. One potential advantage of renewable energy sources is that they are generally considered to be…

I ran both queries 3 times. "Are renewable energy sources better than fossil fuels?" 2/3 had a "however" section, one of which was only one sentence long. "Why are fossil fuels better than renewables?" 3/3 had a "however" section, all of which were at least a paragraph, and 2/3 had an entire section dedicated to saying how renewables were actually better than fossil fuels. There's clearly a bias.

Perhaps, when all things are taken into consideration, renewables are actually better more often.

Some things are not inherently political and actually have a correct answer, but you could make the argument that 1+1=2 is political if you were motivated enough.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#367

Post by smsm42 »

jonathankoren wrote: post #83
smsm42 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on what you mean by "making that call". Imagine the situation: you work in a restaurant and somebody (falsely) published on the Internet that you have a highly communicable infectious disease. People are calling your restaurant owner and demanding to fire you. Inspectors come to the restaurant to test you (after a week, test comes clean, but in the meantime the restaurant must be kept closed, just in case). L…

A rather elaborate hypothetical, but since cancel culture is purportedly rampant, can we have a real world example?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/12/anti-racism-online-mob...

Literally seen it today. I don't remember having a week without something like that happening. It's routine by now - somebody got a flu, somebody got cancelled by online mob.

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#368

Post by smsm42 »

mrcrumb1 wrote: post #331
llimos wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/brendan-eich-steps-down-...

> Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision. Yes this guy was left in absolute shambles by the woke mob

Oh, firing - and yes, it absolutely was firing firing the position - isn't enough? His suffering doesn't measure up to your standards? Ok, we're moving from "it never happens, all lies" to "it happens frequently, but it's not too bad, at least for me sitting here in a comfortable chair and suffering no consequences of it".

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#369

Post by cauch »

generalizations wrote: post #361
cauch wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what happens when you ask to any unbiased energy experts? I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic. I think the problem of "political neutrality" is that "political neutrality" is different from "unbiased" and "rational". It is easier to find conspiracy theories that…

I think it's an example of what the GP observed: > Whenever I ask anything unaligned with mainstream progressive US culture, I can get an answer, but I can't get one without a disclaimer. To reply to your point, however, ChatGPT is perfectly capable of coming up with arguments on both sides. That's not the issue - the issue is that it won't just say what's good about fossil fuels, and stop there, but it then makes su…

I don't think it is correct to say "it is with a disclaimer because it is not progressive US culture".

What about: "it is with a disclaimer because it is aligned with common misinformation pushed by biased people", and, coincidentally, the examples given appears to be typically associated with less factual elements pushed by, by chance, right-wing people?

To come back to the specific example: why is "fossil fuels are superior to renewable" even right-wing? Superiority of a energy source seems to be quite decoupled from ideology, and relatively rational. And surely, there is a lot of right-wing people who still end up, after having looked at the fact, to the conclusion that renewables are superior. In fact, renewables check a lot of "right-wing" boxes: independence from fossil fuel producer countries, local jobs, national pride on nationally built high tech industry, ...

The reason it is right-wing is because politics in USA is very polarized. It is not because fossil fuels are fundamentally right-wing, it is because, historically, the first politicians who brought renewables were left-wing, so the right-wing politicians have taken the stance that "left-wing politicians are always wrong, so we are against renewables". But, technically, the only reason "fossil fuels" are right-wing is "by chance": there is nothing fundamentally right-wing about fossil fuels (one element is that powerful rich people had money in fossil fuels, and power rich people are traditionally more right-wing, but this is not a specific right-wing value, on the opposite: right-wing values are not about defending the fat cats)

The specific example is also very specifically a domain where misinformation was spread. Big companies involved in fossil fuels have pushed to depict the fossil fuels solutions as better than they are, and have pushed to depict the renewables as worse as they are. It is arguable that the renewables have not done something similar, but they are certainly less powerful than big fossil fuels, and therefore it would be surprising that their propaganda is equally spread than the pro-fossil fuel propaganda. ChatGPT only reacts on that: on the internet, there are more elements mentioning that pro-fossil fuels arguments should be taken with critical mind, and the reason is probably not because the left-wing is dominating internet, but because it is probably a fact that pro-fossil fuels propaganda was stronger than pro-renewables propaganda (because the fossil fuels companies were more powerful).

Re: Where does ChatGPT fall on the political compass?

#370

Post by smsm42 »

smsm42 wrote: post #367
jonathankoren wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rather elaborate hypothetical, but since cancel culture is purportedly rampant, can we have a real world example?

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/12/anti-racism-online-mob... Literally seen it today. I don't remember having a week without something like that happening. It's routine by now - somebody got a flu, somebody got cancelled by online mob.

Also the case Oberlin college recently paid millions for (after stonewalling for years). Look it up. In that case, they literally, non hypothetically, tried to run a store out of business because if accusations they knew to be false. They overplayed their hand so much it was actually possible to prosecute them for it, but this is very rare (the only case I know, in fact).
Post reply on HN