ChatGPT DOES have a left-wing bias: Scientists confirm the AI bot's responses favour the Democrats in the US and the Labour Party in the UK

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, FruitPudding said:

How am I supposed to give an example when the information was censored? Doh ???? ????

 

But Facebook admitted it was going on.

Any other platforms you can think of where they've admitted it happens?

 

I don't know the exact figures but I'd be surprised if Facebook accounted for even 0.1% of the internet.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, FruitPudding said:

How am I supposed to give an example when the information was censored? Doh ???? ????

 

But Facebook admitted it was going on.

‘Information’ sounds innocuous.

 

Facebook removing ‘lies’, is not simply ‘censorship’.

 

 

[FruitPudding]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘Information’ sounds innocuous.

 

Facebook removing ‘lies’, is not simply ‘censorship’.

 

 

How subjective.

 

So, the government can just decide what they think is a lie and have it removed?

 

Apparently, they can............and do.

 

Are you actually okay with that?

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Any other platforms you can think of where they've admitted it happens?

 

I don't know the exact figures but I'd be surprised if Facebook accounted for even 0.1% of the internet.

Facebook accounts for over 17% of website visits:

 

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/software/website-statistics/

[JonnyF]

43 minutes ago, patman30 said:

"AI" is not what you think it is
what we all think of as "AI" is actually "AGI"
current "AI" does not mature, learn and become wise, it does not have general intelligence
it is just a boat load of inputs to get an output
whoever controls the inputs essentially controls the output.

Ummmm - actually my comments were not meant to be taken literally ????. Think of them more as a metaphor. 

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Facebook accounts for over 17% of website visits:

 

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/software/website-statistics/

Visits, probably.

 

I was thinking more about content.

[sungod]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s certainly bias.

 

Arguably the most significant technological revolution in human history and you choose to ask it questions rooted in rightwing grievances.

 

 

You've just blown away the theory with your reply that left wing/liberal minded people are more intelligent!!! ????

Edited August 17, 2023 by sungod

[novacova]

2 minutes ago, sungod said:

You've just blown away the theory that left wing/liberal minded people are more intelligent!!! ????

Of course they’re more intelligent, they need a computer program to generate their thinking, thought patterns and answers. No individual analysis required. It must be euphoric to be in such a state of laziness ????

[patman30]

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Ummmm - actually my comments were not meant to be taken literally ????. Think of them more as a metaphor. 

your "metaphors" do not work with what is commonly known as "AI"
again
"AI" is not what you think it is.

[Lacessit]

Left-wing is a perception thing. Americans react to the term socialism as if it is another form of leprosy, whereas there are other nations that periodically elect socialist governments with no fuss.

 

The most interesting aspect of this thread for me is the number of posters I see in grayscale, who have made it onto my ignore list.

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, patman30 said:

your "metaphors" do not work with what is commonly known as "AI"
again
"AI" is not what you think it is.

You clearly don't understand the context of my comment and have no idea what I think AI is. I was simply taking the mickey out of another poster who I know to be left wing by insinuating that it is an immature political ideology that AI will "grow out of". It wasn't meant to be taken literally as confirmation of the abilities of AI to change political philosophy over time.

 

Now, stop using broad, vague statements to pretend to appear to be an expert on all things AI. You sound like Elizabeth Holmes "dumbing down" things for her audience when she clearly didn't have a clue herself ????. 

[patman30]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

You clearly don't understand the context of my comment and have no idea what I think AI is. I was simply taking the mickey out of another poster who I know to be left wing by insinuating that it is an immature political ideology that AI will "grow out of". It wasn't meant to be taken literally as confirmation of the abilities of AI to change political philosophy over time.

 

Now, stop using broad, vague statements to pretend to appear to be an expert on all things AI. You sound like Elizabeth Holmes "dumbing down" things for her audience when she clearly didn't have a clue herself ????. 

your metaphors still don't apply
if you are TTP out of someone use that as your first response
instead of insisting you are using metaphors to describe something
i don't know who EH is, don't care to search either
and i am an expert on nothing
i am however a part of something quite significant in this area that will launch soon which is beyond anything available to the public today.
maybe we should both not assume so much.

[novacova]

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Left-wing is a perception thing. Americans react to the term socialism as if it is another form of leprosy

Absolutely correct, because the core and concept of what an American is, is self ownership and self independence, not dependency on government…Don’t think AI can experience the essence and notion of what being an American is.

[JonnyF]

13 minutes ago, patman30 said:

i am however a part of something quite significant in this area that will launch soon which is beyond anything available to the public today.

More vague, indeterminate statements to imply a superior level of knowledge.

 

I can only hope it doesn't entail structuring paragraphs and using punctuation. ????

[Sticky Rice Balls]

ahhh i see were doing this game again..religion and/or politics where no minds are changed

 

cool story...so dont use it........now do the bias in elons twitter and right bias,,,then do fox news!!!

 

(vomits)......RIP Thai Visa....

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

And so, if you ask ChatGPT to make the case against weepy hysteria over climate change (as I did), it answers with a screed explaining why you should get hysterical and why you should always, always, listen to your friendly government and obey their diktats.

 

I expect the same obtains for anything to do with Covid, monkey pox, people who identify as cats, and any other topic where there is only one 'official narrative' and everything else is 'disinformation'.

 

It's a chicken-and-egg thing. Did ChatGPT write Wikipedia or did Wikipedia write ChatGPT?

That suggests that there is far more information regarding the validity of climate change on the internet than climate change denial.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, FruitPudding said:

You seem to not mind governments censoring information.

 

The mind boggles. 

 

I, on the other hand, think information should not be kept from the people and there should be freedom of speech without censorship.

 

Lack of comprehension? One of the traits of a fascist government is to.........drum roll please........censor information !

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that my point was that nobody controls the entire internet.  Or perhaps you are trying to deflect.

 

Do you really think that somebody controls the entire internet, and therefore the inputs used by LLM AI?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, FruitPudding said:

Brain, please.

 

How am I supposed to give an example when the information was censored? Doh ???? ????

 

By definition: I was not allowed to get that information, so how can I tell you about it?

 

But Facebook admitted it was going on.

Brain, please.

 

If all that information ceased to exist after it was censored from Facebook, how do you know it ever existed?

 

Or did you read about what Facebook was required to censor on the uncensored internet?  If that is so, then the internet isn't censored, is it?

[patman30]

33 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

More vague, indeterminate statements to imply a superior level of knowledge.

 

I can only hope it doesn't entail structuring paragraphs and using punctuation. ????

there are an optimal number of typos????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Visits, probably.

 

I was thinking more about content.

I provided a link to back my argument.

 

Can you do likewise?

[gargamon]

Of course chatgpt is biased towards the left. After all, it is trying to portray the truth. Not much of that from the right. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

How subjective.

 

So, the government can just decide what they think is a lie and have it removed?

 

Apparently, they can............and do.

 

Are you actually okay with that?

There’s nothing subjective about what constitutes a lie.

 

[Eleftheros]

51 minutes ago, heybruce said:

That suggests that there is far more information regarding the validity of climate change on the internet than climate change denial.

It suggests, correctly, that there is far more content aimed at promoting and encouraging emotional climate hysteria than there is taking an even-handed skeptical scientific approach.

[youreavinalaff]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I provided a link to back my argument.

 

Can you do likewise?

I'm not arguing.

 

I made a comment. Within that comment I said I was not sure of the figures. No link needed as it was an open suggestion.

 

If you have a link to the exact figures please show. It will be interesting to see the exact figures.

Edited August 17, 2023 by youreavinalaff
Typo

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

It suggests, correctly, that there is far more content aimed at promoting and encouraging emotional climate hysteria than there is taking an even-handed skeptical scientific approach.

I think it far more likely that there are more credible "even-handed skeptical" scientific reports in reputable journals that support climate change than credible "even-handed skeptical" scientific reports that deny it.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I'm not arguing.

 

I made a comment. Within that comment I said I was not sure of the figures. No link needed as it was an open suggestion.

 

If you have a link to tge exact figures please show. It will be interesting to see the exact figures.

OK so you were wrong.

 

Facebook constitutes a great deal more of the internet than you baselessly assumed.

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

OK so you were wrong.

 

Facebook constitutes a great deal more of the internet than you baselessly assumed.

Why always try to make more of something?

 

I assumed nothing. It was a figure I've already said I'm not sure of. 

 

You have shown the percentage of visits to the internet Facebook gets.

 

As I previously mentioned, I was thinking of content, as that is what the poster I quoted was talking about.

 

If you think my figure is wrong, you should prove it. 

 

Like I said, it would be interesting to know the exact figures regarding Facebook's share of internet content.

 

 

[Eleftheros]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I think it far more likely that there are more credible "even-handed skeptical" scientific reports in reputable journals that support climate change than credible "even-handed skeptical" scientific reports that deny it.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is some area of life or culture where you disagree with the "official" narrative being promoted in the legacy media on behalf of government.

 

For example, let's say that you believe in the statement: "A man cannot biologically become a woman."

 

If you ask ChatGPT to write a few paragraphs on why this is obviously true, you will get back a load of mealy-mouthed crap about how "The idea that a man can become a woman overnight is a common misconception. A man who wants to become a woman would need to undergo a series of surgeries... It's not possible for a man to become a woman without changing their behavior. " ... etc etc.

 

I know this because I just asked ChatGPT this very question and that's what I got back.

 

Its bias is so extreme that it is prepared to abandon physical reality in order to promote the current "official" fad.

[Bkk Brian]

4 hours ago, sungod said:

No bias here then....

One thing to remember here is that Chatgpt is not connected to the internet. The version used on this forum is also old data and does not give the full responses. 

 

In my limited research into AI there are far better alternatives such as the Bing inbuilt version or Google's Bard, both those have up to date results and give far more information. For example here is the question I asked Bing and the returned reply that also comes with links although those are not formatted in my copy and paste below.

 

"the case against climate change"

 

The case against climate change is a controversial topic that has been debated by scientists, politicians, and activists for decades. There are different arguments and evidence that are used to support or refute the idea that human activities are causing global warming and its consequences. Here are some of the main points from both sides of the debate, based on the web search results I found:

 

-For climate change: There is a conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of manmade climate change, based on observations, measurements, and computer models. The main arguments are:

-The Earth’s temperature has risen rapidly and unprecedentedly in the past few decades, especially since the industrial revolution123.
-he increase in temperature is correlated with the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from human activities such as burning fossil fuels123.
-The chemical signature of the gases in the atmosphere shows that they are not all natural, but partly due to human influence12.
-The natural factors that affect the climate, such as solar radiation and volcanic eruptions, cannot explain the observed warming without taking into account the human-induced greenhouse gases123.
-The climate models that include both natural and anthropogenic factors fit well with the observed data, while those that exclude human influence do not123.
-The impacts of climate change are already visible and harmful, such as melting ice caps, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, and human health risks123.

Against climate change: There is no conclusive evidence to support the existence of manmade climate change, and the claims are based on exaggerated or flawed data and models. The main arguments are:

-The Earth’s temperature has always fluctuated naturally over long periods of time, and the current warming is not unusual or unprecedented4.
-The increase in greenhouse gas emissions is not the main cause of the warming, but rather a result of natural variations in the climate system4.
-The chemical signature of the gases in the atmosphere is not reliable or accurate, and there are other sources of greenhouse gases besides human activities4.
-The natural factors that affect the climate, such as solar radiation and volcanic eruptions, have a larger and more complex influence than human-induced greenhouse gases4.
-The climate models that include human influence are biased or inaccurate, and do not account for all the uncertainties and feedbacks in the climate system4.
-The impacts of climate change are not as severe or certain as claimed, and there are also benefits or opportunities from a warmer climate4.
-As you can see, there are different perspectives and interpretations of the same data and phenomena. I hope this summary helps you understand some of the main arguments for and against climate change. If you want to learn more, you can check out the web search results I used to create this response. ????

 

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Why always try to make more of something?

 

I assumed nothing. It was a figure I've already said I'm not sure of. 

 

You have shown the percentage of visits to the internet Facebook gets.

 

As I previously mentioned, I was thinking of content, as that is what the poster I quoted was talking about.

 

If you think my figure is wrong, you should prove it. 

 

Like I said, it would be interesting to know the exact figures regarding Facebook's share of internet content.

 

 

If you state a number, it’s for you to demonstrate that number is correct or provide a link to a credible source for that number.

 

You don’t get to make claims then assert its for others to prove you wrong.