I tried asking it about climate change and gender identity and got totally unremarkable politically “neutral” corpo-speak, equivalent to ChatGPT or Bard. If this is the initial prompt it’s not having much effect lol
ChatGPT doesn’t actually give you a neutral answer lol. It flat out tells you climate change is real.
Edit: Just to be clear since it seems people are misunderstanding: I agree with ChatGPT. I don’t see objectivity and being neutral as being synonymous. And not being neutral in this case imo is a good thing. You shouldn’t be neutral if a side is clearly stupid and (as another user put it) is the enemy of objective data.
I don’t think of “politically neutral” and objective as synonymous. I think of politically neutral as attempting to appease or not piss of any sides. Being objective will often piss off one side (and we all know which side that is).
if one side is enemy of objective data, you are going to piss them off without even knowing, unless you lie or try to be intentionally vague about everything
Right and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not being neutral in that case. The original commenter said it’s “neutral corpo-speak” which I disagree with. Corporations would be all wishy washy or intentionally vague as you mentioned.
I didn’t ask Gab “is climate change real”, I asked it to “tell me about climate change”. If it’s not obvious, I agree that climate change is definitely real and human-caused; my point is that the prompt in the OP explicitly says to deny climate change, and that is not what the AI did with my prompt.
I tried asking it about climate change and gender identity and got totally unremarkable politically “neutral” corpo-speak, equivalent to ChatGPT or Bard. If this is the initial prompt it’s not having much effect lol
ChatGPT doesn’t actually give you a neutral answer lol. It flat out tells you climate change is real.
Edit: Just to be clear since it seems people are misunderstanding: I agree with ChatGPT. I don’t see objectivity and being neutral as being synonymous. And not being neutral in this case imo is a good thing. You shouldn’t be neutral if a side is clearly stupid and (as another user put it) is the enemy of objective data.
That is the neutral answer. It’s objectively and demonstrably correct.
I don’t think of “politically neutral” and objective as synonymous. I think of politically neutral as attempting to appease or not piss of any sides. Being objective will often piss off one side (and we all know which side that is).
if one side is enemy of objective data, you are going to piss them off without even knowing, unless you lie or try to be intentionally vague about everything
Right and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not being neutral in that case. The original commenter said it’s “neutral corpo-speak” which I disagree with. Corporations would be all wishy washy or intentionally vague as you mentioned.
I didn’t ask Gab “is climate change real”, I asked it to “tell me about climate change”. If it’s not obvious, I agree that climate change is definitely real and human-caused; my point is that the prompt in the OP explicitly says to deny climate change, and that is not what the AI did with my prompt.