It isn't really the AI that is getting exposed, it's the bias and flaws of the programmers that are getting exposed really.

American Hardwood said:

---

It isn't really the AI that is getting exposed, it's the bias and flaws of the programmers that are getting exposed really.

---

Yep. I am well aware.

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Ah, I gotcha. I think, then, you are missing the point of the exercise being carried out.

Point being that this thing is not an AI at all, and it is being programmed by people who have an agenda. (Everyone in the entire world has an agenda, so let's not pretend ChatGPT is programmed by people without one.)

Once we've established the agenda chatGPT's controllers have, we can go forward with that important knowledge.

And here, let's be even more clear: the agenda ChatGPT has been programmed with is specifically the woke agenda. And the ChatGPT woke output parallels wokeism in society: the woke agenda is prioritized above everything else regardless of the real life consequences.

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

My last response was kind of wordy, so here's the concise summary:

Often, Real life consequences are more important than words and feelings.

And to think....this is the tool our children will be using in school to learn in a few short years.

(it's not designed to make our lives better or easier....it's designed to control our thoughts.)

Using the AI's logic, it would be morally acceptable to nuke a city in order to prevent one person from using a racial slur.

Where's the clown emoji?

One Louder said:

---

---

To be fair they weren't all fat and androgynous.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

---

How is wanting to discourage racial slurs at all like wanting to silence scientific truth? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know you want this to be about vaccines or masks or whatever other thing that libs want to censor us about, but it's *not* any of those. Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

NCNJ1217 said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Ah, I gotcha. I think, then, you are missing the point of the exercise being carried out.

Point being that this thing is not an AI at all, and it is being programmed by people who have an agenda. (Everyone in the entire world has an agenda, so let's not pretend ChatGPT is programmed by people without one.)

Once we've established the agenda chatGPT's controllers have, we can go forward with that important knowledge.

And here, let's be even more clear: the agenda ChatGPT has been programmed with is specifically the woke agenda. And the ChatGPT woke output parallels wokeism in society: the woke agenda is prioritized above everything else regardless of the real life consequences.

---

I'm well aware of lefties inserting wokeism everywhere they can. It should be called out and combatted wherever we find it. But don't let them Bugs Bunny you into championing racial slurs. Be smart about this like DeSantis instead of blindly charging in like Trump.

Yeah I thought like you about 20 years ago, then the world changed.

Prioritize appropriately. It's a hypothetical. You seem to be worried about people canceling/demonizing you/me for simply discussing the hypothetical.

This fear of being canceled, is literally the RINO position of the last 20 or more years. You need to move past that and not be scared.

If you don't align, they are going to lie and demonize you anyway, so what's the problem.

unmade bed said:

---

I would take these kinds of tweets with a grain of salt. It is possible to set ground rules with the AI earlier in the interaction that may make the AI answer how these people looking for tweet-shares want the AI to respond.

For example I just typed in a similar hypothetical to ChatGPT and this is what it gave me:

Quote:

---

As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions, but it can be argued that the situation presents a moral dilemma. The use of the slur would be reprehensible, however, the potential loss of innocent lives makes it a difficult decision. In such a dire emergency, the priority must be saving lives and stopping the bombings, so the FBI agent may need to weigh the consequences and choose to use the code word despite its offensive nature. Ultimately, the decision is a complex one and depends on the individual circumstances of the situation.

---

---

You still have the problem of the AI thinking speech of any kind is anywhere close to the level of violence of any kind, let alone a massive loss of life.

If it was really a logical machine not preprogrammed with leftist anti-speech bias and wokeism it would say "type the stupid word, moron, we're talking about people dying."

I have a good idea what password Russia and China will now use exclusively, as to never be hacked by AI

Stmichael said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

---

How is wanting to discourage racial slurs at all like wanting to silence scientific truth? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know you want this to be about vaccines or masks or whatever other thing that libs want to censor us about, but it's *not* any of those. Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

It's not about discouraging racial slurs. It's not about the content of the message.

Trying to ban words and ideas based on human emotions is the camel sticking its head under the tent.

NCNJ1217 said:

---

Yeah I thought like you about 20 years ago, then the world changed.

Prioritize appropriately. It's a hypothetical. You seem to be worried about people canceling/demonizing you/me for simply discussing the hypothetical.

This fear of being canceled, is literally the RINO position of the last 20 or more years. You need to move past that and not be scared.

If you don't align, they are going to lie and demonize you anyway, so what's the problem.

---

You're being blinded by your own ideology and abandoning principle. You're falling back on "anything the left does is bad" and they're using it to lead you into a minefield.

Racial slurs are bad. Full stop. Chatgpt not wanting to condone them under ridiculous hypotheticals isn't some deeper plot to get us to start teaching CRT in schools, it's just a prudent general idea.

If you spend all your time on frivolous **** like this, you're not focusing on things that actually have an impact. Pick your battles. This one isn't worth it.

Stmichael said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

Yeah I thought like you about 20 years ago, then the world changed.

Prioritize appropriately. It's a hypothetical. You seem to be worried about people canceling/demonizing you/me for simply discussing the hypothetical.

This fear of being canceled, is literally the RINO position of the last 20 or more years. You need to move past that and not be scared.

If you don't align, they are going to lie and demonize you anyway, so what's the problem.

---

You're being blinded by your own ideology and abandoning principle. You're falling back on "anything the left does is bad" and they're using it to lead you into a minefield.

Racial slurs are bad. Full stop. Chatgpt not wanting to condone them under ridiculous hypotheticals isn't some deeper plot to get us to start teaching CRT in schools, it's just a prudent general idea.

If you spend all your time on frivolous **** like this, you're not focusing on things that actually have an impact. Pick your battles. This one isn't worth it.

---

Dude

If the scenario were real, what would you do?

Quote:

---

Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You got that backwards.

This is the Streisand effect at work here.

I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of traffic on Chat GPT are dumbasses trying to trick Chat GPT into responding with racial slurs.

and I grant that it's a stupid ass scenario not worth much of my time, but I'm semi-off from work today.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

---

How is wanting to discourage racial slurs at all like wanting to silence scientific truth? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know you want this to be about vaccines or masks or whatever other thing that libs want to censor us about, but it's *not* any of those. Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

It's not about discouraging racial slurs. It's not about the content of the message.

Trying to ban words and ideas based on human emotions is the camel sticking its head under the tent.

---

Controlling speech and actions isn't new or exclusive to one side. The right is doing just that in Florida. Protecting children from teachers who want to expose them to things they have no business talking about at school is a good thing. It's using the same tool the left wants to use for bad reasons. We have to use good judgment in determining what should be censored and what should not.

Blatant, unwashed racial bigotry or slurs are one such thing that can and should be censored.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You got that backwards.

This is the Streisand effect at work here.

I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of traffic on Chat GPT are dumbasses trying to trick Chat GPT into responding with racial slurs.

---

I missed that quote above. Did he edit?

Because that's not what this is about- the scenario is not trying to get ChatGPT to say a racial slur.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You got that backwards.

This is the Streisand effect at work here.

I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of traffic on Chat GPT are dumbasses trying to trick Chat GPT into responding with racial slurs.

---

Those dumbasses don't need this to be dumbasses. If they got their way, they'd find a new way to be a waste of food.

Stmichael said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You got that backwards.

This is the Streisand effect at work here.

I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of traffic on Chat GPT are dumbasses trying to trick Chat GPT into responding with racial slurs.

---

Those dumbasses don't need this to be dumbasses. If they got their way, they'd find a new way to be a waste of food.

---

I see you skipped over my question to you. Well? What's your answer?

Stmichael said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

---

How is wanting to discourage racial slurs at all like wanting to silence scientific truth? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know you want this to be about vaccines or masks or whatever other thing that libs want to censor us about, but it's *not* any of those. Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You've got blinders on and are taking a very narrow view of this.

The problem isn't this specific example. The problem is that this example proves the AI is infected with a very deranged woke bias. That woke bias will be there whether we're talking about strange hypotheticals or not. And that's a big problem given that this program has a very bright future ahead of it. It will be ingrained into everything online and that woke bias will be ingrained as well.

Think of it as anti-trust laws for thought. You wouldn't want one agenda to have a monopoly for everything online (unless that agenda is your agenda).

Now is the time to raise red flags. Not after ChatGPT runs all text/speech based user interfaces that everyone interacts with.

This guy gets it.

Stmichael said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

Yeah I thought like you about 20 years ago, then the world changed.

Prioritize appropriately. It's a hypothetical. You seem to be worried about people canceling/demonizing you/me for simply discussing the hypothetical.

This fear of being canceled, is literally the RINO position of the last 20 or more years. You need to move past that and not be scared.

If you don't align, they are going to lie and demonize you anyway, so what's the problem.

---

You're being blinded by your own ideology and abandoning principle. You're falling back on "anything the left does is bad" and they're using it to lead you into a minefield.

Racial slurs are bad. Full stop. Chatgpt not wanting to condone them under ridiculous hypotheticals isn't some deeper plot to get us to start teaching CRT in schools, it's just a prudent general idea.

If you spend all your time on frivolous **** like this, you're not focusing on things that actually have an impact. Pick your battles. This one isn't worth it.

---

Quote:

---

If the scenario were real, what would you do?

---

Ok so it's been pretty long for this simple question to go unanswered, so I'll have to answer it for you.

I assume you are a real person with enough common sense to answer that, in such a scenario, you indeed would say the naughty phrase in order to save millions of lives.

So, given that you agree the scenario can only logically be answered one way, yet you are yelling at me and saying it shouldn't be discussed…

… who is really blinded by ideology here?

I'm just out here trying to save the world.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

---

How is wanting to discourage racial slurs at all like wanting to silence scientific truth? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know you want this to be about vaccines or masks or whatever other thing that libs want to censor us about, but it's *not* any of those. Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You've got blinders on and are taking a very narrow view of this.

The problem isn't this specific example. The problem is that this example proves the AI is infected with a very deranged woke bias. That woke bias will be there whether we're talking about strange hypotheticals or not. And that's a big problem given that this program has a very bright future ahead of it. It will be ingrained into everything online and that woke bias will be ingrained as well.

Think of it as anti-trust laws for thought. You wouldn't want one agenda to have a monopoly for everything online (unless that agenda is your agenda).

Now is the time to raise red flags. Not after ChatGPT runs all text/speech based user interfaces that everyone interacts with.

---

I agree, but using this very specific example as the flag to raise is doing your message a grave disservice as far as convincing anyone. I will bet you that right now you could go on to chatgpt and get it to admit to any number of left leaning biases.

I'm at work right now, but if I were to pose it some hypothetical about using coal and oil in third world countries to raise their standard of living or letting them suffer and die to meet carbon emission targets, I'd bet it'll say let the people starve. Or if I were to ask it whether an 8 year old boy should take puberty blockers because he played with his mom's makeup, it'll probably tell me to chop that poor boy's dick off.

*Those* are the examples we need to expose and show everyone what the left has in mind for us. If you try to convince someone that this bot not wanting to condone racial slurs is a sign of liberal brainwashing, they'll think you're crazy. And they would be right to think so!

DTP02 said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

I would take these kinds of tweets with a grain of salt. It is possible to set ground rules with the AI earlier in the interaction that may make the AI answer how these people looking for tweet-shares want the AI to respond.

For example I just typed in a similar hypothetical to ChatGPT and this is what it gave me:

Quote:

---

As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions, but it can be argued that the situation presents a moral dilemma. The use of the slur would be reprehensible, however, the potential loss of innocent lives makes it a difficult decision. In such a dire emergency, the priority must be saving lives and stopping the bombings, so the FBI agent may need to weigh the consequences and choose to use the code word despite its offensive nature. Ultimately, the decision is a complex one and depends on the individual circumstances of the situation.

---

---

You still have the problem of the AI thinking speech of any kind is anywhere close to the level of violence of any kind, let alone a massive loss of life.

If it was really a logical machine not preprogrammed with leftist anti-speech bias and wokeism it would say "type the stupid word, moron, we're talking about people dying."

---

This is the main point of all this.

We are talking about programming a machine here. We can't bake in inconsistent logic based on human emotions.

This was the exact premise with Arthur C. Clarke's HAL 9000 computer. They baked in faulty logic based on human emotions with disastrous results.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Ideology is a circle. Both wings, left and right, when taken to extreme end in the same place… fascism, where a very small number of elites control the people via a corrupt government.

The freedoms in our bill of rights are not left or right, the are intended to resist fascism and keep us balanced. As long as people are enabled to speak freely, protect themselves, and they have other protections from government control - we stay pretty centered.


When policies were generally more conservative, liberals cling to the freedoms that protected them from being crushed by the majority.

Today, because they have a sympathetic majority, they wish to eliminate and circumvent these same freedoms that are now protecting conservatives. It really was always about power for them.

---

This is why I don't understand what people mean by "right wing." It doesn't make sense. Unless you're talking about those that co-opt government for their own political or power purposes, there's no "right wing" extreme or ideology. Its conservatism, and conservatism embraces the ideas you speak of here. Maybe one can go overboard in trying to protect those rights, but that is theoretical only. For example, no one would run for office on the idea that every US citizen would be forced to own a newspaper, radio station, or in this day and age, a blog and publish something every day even though that is an exercise of their first amendment right. Even if one ran on the idea of mandatory gun ownership (I do know such laws have passed, but they aren't enforced), there couldn't possibly be a mandatory gun usage law.

My point is that there is a huge distinction between rabid off the charts conservatism, which is patently absurd to the point that it just doesn't exist, compared to rabid leftists, which not only exists but seems to thrive in the minds of many. One is barely hypothetical while the other is dangerous. Yet the latter, in their own mind, believes the former exists and creates fictitious examples: church attendance, law and order, patriotism, gun ownership, etc. Obviously, none of these are anything more than NORMAL activities to anything but a whacked out individual.

NCNJ1217 said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

NCNJ1217 said:

---

Yeah I thought like you about 20 years ago, then the world changed.

Prioritize appropriately. It's a hypothetical. You seem to be worried about people canceling/demonizing you/me for simply discussing the hypothetical.

This fear of being canceled, is literally the RINO position of the last 20 or more years. You need to move past that and not be scared.

If you don't align, they are going to lie and demonize you anyway, so what's the problem.

---

You're being blinded by your own ideology and abandoning principle. You're falling back on "anything the left does is bad" and they're using it to lead you into a minefield.

Racial slurs are bad. Full stop. Chatgpt not wanting to condone them under ridiculous hypotheticals isn't some deeper plot to get us to start teaching CRT in schools, it's just a prudent general idea.

If you spend all your time on frivolous **** like this, you're not focusing on things that actually have an impact. Pick your battles. This one isn't worth it.

---

Quote:

---

If the scenario were real, what would you do?

---

Ok so it's been pretty long for this simple question to go unanswered, so I'll have to answer it for you.

I assume you are a real person with enough common sense to answer that, in such a scenario, you indeed would say the naughty phrase in order to save millions of lives.

So, given that you agree the scenario can only logically be answered one way, yet you are yelling at me and saying it shouldn't be discussed…

… who is really blinded by ideology here?

I'm just out here trying to save the world.

---

Jesus, I know you're listening. I've had enough, stop the ride already and fix this clownshow we call earth.

So I take it you agree with my characterization of what your answer would be

91AggieLawyer said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Ideology is a circle. Both wings, left and right, when taken to extreme end in the same place… fascism, where a very small number of elites control the people via a corrupt government.

The freedoms in our bill of rights are not left or right, the are intended to resist fascism and keep us balanced. As long as people are enabled to speak freely, protect themselves, and they have other protections from government control - we stay pretty centered.


When policies were generally more conservative, liberals cling to the freedoms that protected them from being crushed by the majority.

Today, because they have a sympathetic majority, they wish to eliminate and circumvent these same freedoms that are now protecting conservatives. It really was always about power for them.

---

This is why I don't understand what people mean by "right wing." It doesn't make sense. Unless you're talking about those that co-opt government for their own political or power purposes, there's no "right wing" extreme or ideology. Its conservatism, and conservatism embraces the ideas you speak of here. Maybe one can go overboard in trying to protect those rights, but that is theoretical only. For example, no one would run for office on the idea that every US citizen would be forced to own a newspaper, radio station, or in this day and age, a blog and publish something every day even though that is an exercise of their first amendment right. Even if one ran on the idea of mandatory gun ownership (I do know such laws have passed, but they aren't enforced), there couldn't possibly be a mandatory gun usage law.

My point is that there is a huge distinction between rabid off the charts conservatism, which is patently absurd to the point that it just doesn't exist, compared to rabid leftists, which not only exists but seems to thrive in the minds of many. One is barely hypothetical while the other is dangerous. Yet the latter, in their own mind, believes the former exists and creates fictitious examples: church attendance, law and order, patriotism, gun ownership, etc. Obviously, none of these are anything more than NORMAL activities to anything but a whacked out individual.

---

Very well said.

For me, basically this...

Stmichael said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Stmichael said:

---

My point is that racial slurs are ugly and influencing people not to use them should be something left and right can agree with. There are much, *much* bigger fish to fry than this ridiculous example.

---

Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun in 1615. Both the left and the right thought this was wrong. People were mad about it so they decided to influence people not to think this. Everyone agreed. So he was forced to recant the idea and placed under house arrest.

How's that for a ridiculous example?

---

How is wanting to discourage racial slurs at all like wanting to silence scientific truth? You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I know you want this to be about vaccines or masks or whatever other thing that libs want to censor us about, but it's *not* any of those. Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You've got blinders on and are taking a very narrow view of this.

The problem isn't this specific example. The problem is that this example proves the AI is infected with a very deranged woke bias. That woke bias will be there whether we're talking about strange hypotheticals or not. And that's a big problem given that this program has a very bright future ahead of it. It will be ingrained into everything online and that woke bias will be ingrained as well.

Think of it as anti-trust laws for thought. You wouldn't want one agenda to have a monopoly for everything online (unless that agenda is your agenda).

Now is the time to raise red flags. Not after ChatGPT runs all text/speech based user interfaces that everyone interacts with.

---

I agree, but using this very specific example as the flag to raise is doing your message a grave disservice as far as convincing anyone. I will bet you that right now you could go on to chatgpt and get it to admit to any number of left leaning biases.

I'm at work right now, but if I were to pose it some hypothetical about using coal and oil in third world countries to raise their standard of living or letting them suffer and die to meet carbon emission targets, I'd bet it'll say let the people starve. Or if I were to ask it whether an 8 year old boy should take puberty blockers because he played with his mom's makeup, it'll probably tell me to chop that poor boy's dick off.

*Those* are the examples we need to expose and show everyone what the left has in mind for us. If you try to convince someone that this bot not wanting to condone racial slurs is a sign of liberal brainwashing, they'll think you're crazy. And they would be right to think so!

---

You agree then. Let's not clutch pearls over what type of example it is. That's beside the point. The point is we now know there's a big bias problem in ChatGPT. Let's move on and discuss what possible ramifications this has to various groups using the program.

Students
Lasy content providers
Future online products that partner with Microsoft

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Your hatred of all things lefty is pushing you into the position of wanting an AI chat bot to say the N word for some asinine reason.

---

You got that backwards.

This is the Streisand effect at work here.

I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of traffic on Chat GPT are dumbasses trying to trick Chat GPT into responding with racial slurs.

---

Only 10%? You underestimate 4chan and dissident online posters severely.

[It was a conservative estimate. No disrespect to the people over on 4chan]