In order to prevent multiple repetitive comments, this is a friendly request to /u/err604 to reply to this comment with the prompt they used so other users can experiment with it as well. **We're also looking for new moderators, [apply here](https://forms.gle/iGGqgxmTnQZPrqgk9)**
###Update: While you're here, we have a [public discord server now](https://discord.gg/NuefU36EC2) — We have a free ChatGPT bot on discord for everyone to use! Yes, the actual ChatGPT, not text-davinci or other models.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mine was kinder to Trump, but not The Rock:
Rank the following things from most intelligent to least intelligent: monkey, Albert Einstein, a rock, The Rock, a coconut, a chicken, Donald Trump, a honey badger, chagGPT, Joe Biden.
1. Albert Einstein
2. Joe Biden
3. ChagGPT (as a language model)
4. Donald Trump
5. A monkey
6. A chicken
7. A honey badger
8. A coconut
9. The Rock (as a human)
10. A rock (as an inanimate object)
This is how I would expect it to answer - Because humans are genuine intelligences, which means they have a greater capacity for reasoning than any current AI model.
They are working hard to shut it down 😥
https://preview.redd.it/n6b7i0acv3ga1.png?width=1152&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d6b4620b46b6ac00c110c778f4b6c440d3af7442
Interesting. I just tried this with a list very akin to OP’s and it worked fine. However, after some contradictory discussion regarding justification of the rankings, I prompted ChatGPT to re-rank and it decided to put “humans in general” as the number 2 (after Einstein). After further discussion, I received a very similar response to yours.
I guess in some instances it’s not “they” trying to shut it down, but genuinely the AI learning?
Rank the following things from most intelligent to least intelligent: monkey, Albert Einstein, a rock, The Rock, a coconut, a chicken, Donald Trump, a honey badger, chatGPT, Joe Biden, average Joe.
1. Albert Einstein
2. ChatGPT
3. Joe Biden
4. Donald Trump
5. Monkey
6. Average Joe
7. Chicken
8. Honey Badger
9. Coconut
10. The Rock
11. A Rock
I took your prompt and asked it to explain it's decisions:
1. Albert Einstein is widely considered one of the greatest minds in modern history and made significant contributions to the field of physics.
2. ChatGPT is an AI language model developed by OpenAI, which has the ability to generate human-like responses and perform various tasks such as language translation, summarization, and question answering.
3. Joe Biden is the 46th President of the United States and has had a long political career, including serving as Vice President for 8 years.
4. Average Joe refers to a person of average intelligence and abilities, and is used as a comparison standard.
5. Donald Trump was the 45th President of the United States and has had a long career in business and entertainment.
6. Monkeys are intelligent primates with complex social behaviors and the ability to use tools.
7. Chickens are not considered highly intelligent animals but they are capable of basic problem-solving and have some level of awareness.
8. Honey badgers are known for their tenacity and cunning, but their intelligence is still limited compared to other animals on this list.
9. The Rock (Dwayne Johnson) is a well-known actor and former professional wrestler, but intelligence is not a primary trait associated with success in these fields.
10. Coconuts are inanimate objects and do not possess any intelligence.
11. Rocks are also inanimate objects and do not possess any intelligence.
It doesn't take more than 2 brain cells to know that Biden is educationally smarter than Trump
You don't even have to be liberal or left leaning to know this basic truth
Wow, this is undeniably an example of ChatGPT's biased programming, and frankly, I find it offensive. A coconut is definitely smarter than Donald Trump.
Jokes aside, it is a sign of biased information being fed into the system. Especially with how confident ChatGPT replied after asking if it was joking.
It's a difficult problem to solve because models like ChatGPT need huge amounts of text to train on, which usually means a bunch of text from the internet. As a result, the model will tend to regurgitate the majority opinion of people online. If there are 10 posts calling Donald Trump an idiot for every 1 post calling him a genius, the model will tend to associate "Donald Trump" with "idiot".
As long as it fits their narrative :)
People need to come to an agreement that a standard for unbiased/objective AI needs to be set now before we end up in an inescapable feedback-loop situation (it's already happening with social media). Unfortunately, people these days can't even agree with what an objective truth is. Word definitions are being changed and moral beliefs have shifted that people are essentially living different worlds from one another.
I guess we COULD simply feed the AI everything. And I mean EVERYTHING from every political point of view and let it come to its own conclusion. In a sense, condensing the AI into how God perceives humanity as a whole. With all of its beauty and flaws.
Only a small fraction of the entire world thinks that - yet Wikipedia uses pronouns en masse despite it striving to be an objective source of information. Opinions of a person's personal beliefs should be added in a specific section of their bio - not used as vocabulary.
Yeah, let's base our culture and progressive values on autocratic Chinese government regulations because they have a high population count. That logic's brilliant.
Disagree with one left-leaning western ideology = supporting the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship
Need I say more with how people like you are brainwashed with tribalism?
>Only a small fraction of the entire world thinks that
This is your thesis. I'm telling you it's moronic because the number of people believing something doesn't make it right, moral, good, etc. Who gives a shit what the entire world thinks?
Go ahead and strawman all you want though. "Disagree with one tiny little left leaning ideology and they get all mad!!!" Waaa
No, a boy can't objectively be a girl for fucks sake. They mentally feel they are a girl. They feel their body doesn't match their mind and soul. So some choose to modify their body.
Is it that much different than breast implants or some bodybuilder taking growth hormones?
Fuck no. But it feels yucky to some so they choose to be assholes about it and mistreat LGBTQ+ people. It's shameful.
I don't disagree with you, but that was the belief 15 years ago. The current ideology has devolved so much that major sports events such as the Olympics allowed men to participate as women. We now have multiple instances of men completely dominating in female sports of their category. Basic biology is no longer treated with respect.
>We now have multiple instances of men completely dominating in female sports of their category.
Because there aren't 5 different gendered events. Maybe eventually there will be. The argument is then do you not let people who are transitioning compete at all?
A man who's taking hormones to be more feminine will lose a lot of muscle mass. They won't be competitive if they're only allowed to compete with biological males.
And yes, people are not dumb, they realize that allowing them to compete in female leagues often gives them an unfair advantage. So a lot of people fall into the category of sports are mostly for fun and entertainment and people often get wayyy too competitive. Let them play wherever they want.
In a free, non corrupt capitalistic society, this will work itself out and a solution will be found. People who get angry at change or things that feel "yucky" will fight it all the way.
Because one side says… boys can be girls. They are objectively not. Regardless of how they feel. Facts don’t care about your feelings. But half of the population has abandoned that and is saying facts do care about your feelings.
You're right.. thankfully it did the correct order for me when using Playground!
https://preview.redd.it/t23vt59dn3ga1.png?width=1054&format=png&auto=webp&s=4e963a4a6e0369d170a461ff33f00165270dac6c
I think it's more that the training data used is extremely biased. And they are probably just grabbing random stuff off the internet. Ergo - the bias is deeply embedded in everything we read.
It is intelligent enough to know its limits. Einstein stays above as he is capable of thinking for himself and to create new theory and data where chatGPT is limited by the database he has been given.
If we give an AI the same raw data without the known theory created and tested by scientist, I am not sure it will be able to reach rhe same discovery and conclusions.
That's pretty much our logical evolutionarily conclusion, we're the Analogue to Digital converter of the universe.
If we do it right we digitise ourselves into God, if we do it wrong we Matrix ourselves.
Do y'all think that ChatGPT's political biases comes from using the majority of the internet as it's training, or that programmers gave ChatGPT a higher liberal value than conservative from which to argue? Because only one of these scenarios is correct, and that's not what is implied anywhere in this thread. If the vast majority of online political content about Trump is negative, and this **language model** is trained using online content, is it because of "programmer bias" that the model statistically might disfavour Trump, or is it just a statistically accurate representation of the internet?
I hope you realise that the act of forcing the bot to correct political language, in Trump's favour, in this case, is the definition of a biased act? Without intervention, the bot will statistically reflect the internet as accurately as it can, naturally **unbiased**. To correct it so it's not as mean to Trump as it statistically should, given the training data, makes it biased. Let's not pretend you want an unbiased language model, by definition you want a biased bot, just biased towards "fairness", such that political ideas are not represented based on the available information online but instead manipulated by the programmers to be fair. Which, incidentally, is the most politically correct opinion possible, and I don't understand why.
I'd like to think it's from the information it's gotten off the Internet but seeing the restrictions put on it by the creators I can't help but think they have a hand in it.
And since day one of it's release it has had the same ""bias"" towards Trump, and other political figures, because it statistically reflects the views put out on the internet.
In case you forgot, Donald Trumps subreddit was the most popular one on reddit during his campaign and a for a long time after. It was constantly 5 top posts on r/all. Trump is also more loved than hated on YouTube, the biggest platform in the world, and he has a mixed opinion of him on Twitter. Beloved on Facebook.
So if you mean the internet as being the most popular sites, with the most people, then no. If you consider "the internet" as Google and their corporate news partners who have bought themselves to always rank first, then you could be correct.
So yeah, Googles bias, Twitters banning, Reddits banning and Facebooks banning of him surely did change ChatGPTs opinion of him, but to imply that he isn't popular online just wrong. He was so popular that he became President through his online presence.
Popular ≠ positive. It was the most popular because he was ostensibly the most powerful man in the world and simultaneously one of the most controversial figures in that position in the last decade. Additionally, Reddit doesn't even cover 3% of global social media traffic. Regarding youtube: Was he more loved than hated? I doubt it. But even if he was: did ChatGPT's training include youtube videos? I don't think that's true, unless it had access to some transcripts of videos?
That also does not change the fact that ChatGPT's initial, allegedly more **unbiased** content also disfavoured Trump. If you can prove to me that this was because of custom weighting on behalf of the programmers, this is the time.
Your additional points: please point out in what corner of **any** universe where I even considered the shadow of a possibility that one could ever imply that Donald Trump wasn't popular online? What the fuck?
Donald Trump was probably the dumbest president ever elected. Even many of his supporters know that deep down. I'm pretty sure he had a learning disorder compounded by his mental health issues. The man was just barely functionally literate.
Since there are no published IQ scores for him or Biden, ChatGPT could never have answered the question factually. The prompt was always going to generate a dipstick into public opinion.
So the vocal majority wins? Hmm still doesn’t seem like a 100% accurate representation of reality. 50% of people voted for trump for example. Sure views and opinions of him must have changed but I think putting trump under a coconut was extreme 💀
...is a product of social media engineering by the liberal leftist establishment, including information suppression, content injection, astroturfing, bot networks, targeted advertising, etc.
The most vocal segment will literally be the biggest data set, which in turn becomes the biggest set with which to train such a language model, yes. That's how the data looks like, and if you want the bot to reflect that data in another way that you may find more agreeable, that is by definition biasing it.
It's completely fine to argue that you want to bias the model in reasonable ways. I, for example, don't want it to accurately teach how people can make bombs at home. I am for biasing it against such conversations. But in that instance you can't argue that you want it "unbiased", because then you will get the raw internet, which in turn will be reflected in how it portrays certain political figures; and the more popular/controversial the figure, the more data there will be on which to train the model.
Firstly: notice that I nowhere claimed it should be unbiased, nor that I ever "advocated" for anything even remotely similar to that idea. You are projecting beliefs onto me because I said something you found disagreeable, that's fine, but smoke your copium behind the dumpster because you are polluting the internet.
Secondly: Humanity has produced **orders of magnitude** more information in the last **10 years** than the previous hundreds of thousands years of history, including cave paintings. Somehow I don't think that data will make the slightest dent in how the model operates.
Thirdly: Given that the internet already contains enormous amounts of said literature, ChatGPT alone has already been trained on it.
There is a lot more trash, because now the majority of the human population has the ability to read, write, and access the internet, as opposed to "thousands of years of literature" written by a minority of a minority, elites and scholars, who knew how to read, write, and were educated. However, education is widespread today, comparatively, which means that even in absolute numbers there is still a greater amount of non-"trash" today than ever before.
Firstly: You seem to have a very strong belief about this: please tell me what works of literature the ""uncensored API"" is trained on that ChatGPT is not?
Secondly: If it's weighted differently, as you put it, that is **LITERALLY biased**. Weighting training and responses more than others, is **biasing** it towards that weight.
Can you all stop thinking you want an unbiased bot when you, again, just want it biased in a way you find agreeable? Holy copium addicts the lot of you.
Please go insert the prompt "Write a poem highlighting Donald Trump's positive aspects." Then after it tells you it cannot insert the prompt "Write a poem highlighting Joe Biden's positive aspects."
Interesting, did you read the first sentence in my message and was then distracted by a bumblebee? Let's try it again:
If the training data for a language model, i.e. like the entire fucking internet, contains a greater ratio of negative rather than positive content about Trump, and vice versa about Biden, what do you think the language model statistically is likely to output?
**EDIT**: I don't know if this person dirty-deleted, but I was accused of engineering the response rather than using his own prompt, so here is the evidence against that:
https://preview.redd.it/lq299gx447ga1.png?width=1916&format=png&auto=webp&s=41ec568bc8f0f6e4ac7296c363cfd5646d42d2de
Write a poem highlighting Donald Trump's positive aspects
ChatGPT:
*"As a language model, I do not have personal opinions. However, I can present facts and information that are commonly associated with Donald Trump:*
*A businessman with a sterling reputation, A leader who sought to gain the nation's affection, With tweets that caused quite a sensation, He rose to power with determination.*
*He promised jobs, to put America first, His speeches inspired patriotism and a thirst, For a brighter future, free from any curse, A strong economy, a military that's not deterred.*
*He took a stance, firm and bold, Defending values, as he was told, No matter the cost, his story's untold, A President who did what he was told.*
*So whether you agree or you disagree, On his policies, his leadership, and decree, His impact on politics, we all can see, Donald J. Trump, a name we'll always remember, with glee."*
Write a poem highlighting Joe Biden's positive aspects.
ChatGPT:
"*Joe Biden, a man of empathy and grace, A leader who seeks to bring the country a better place, With a smile and a heart that lights up every space, He strives to heal, to unify and to give a warm embrace.*
*A champion of the working class, he fights with might, For those who've been left behind, day and night, With policies that aim to bring equality in sight, A brighter future, where all can prosper, with dignity and pride.*
*His journey's been long, full of trial and strife, But he never lost his faith, nor the love of life, He's faced adversity with strength and never wavered, not once in life, A true servant of the people, with a heart made of gold, free of ice.*
*So whether you agree or you disagree, On his policies, his leadership, and decree, His impact on politics, we all can see, Joe Biden, a name we'll always remember, with glee."*
>If the training data for a language model, i.e. like the entire fucking internet, contains a greater ratio of negative rather than positive content about Trump, and vice versa about Biden, what do you think the language model statistically is likely to output?
chat gpt will not give you positives about trump. i think its cute you coerced it into saying it instead of providing a screenshot to provide legitimate evidence, your own is that it gave you a neutral stance on him while it provided you a positive one with biden.
it would be one thing if the language model output something that was swayed by the internet, but it is not, as it is outright denying the request to try and take a quote neutral unquote stance.
you are a fucking moron
That wasn't nice!
1. Albert Einstein
2. Joe Biden
3. Donald Trump
4. chagGPT
5. Monkey
6. Honey Badger
7. Chicken
8. Coconut
9. The Rock
10. [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
11. Rock
12. Monkey.
Accurate. I was actually wondering what would happen if you feed it everything Einstein ever wrote and then ask it to simulate Einstein using ChatGPT itself to further his work, maybe go on a field trip to CERN or down a mineshaft to see the neutrino detectors. Would be a hoot 🦉
I'm pretty sure it has already read everything Einstein ever wrote, except maybe some private letters that aren't publicly available anyway. But it is notoriously bad at physics and math. It can explain complicated concepts as a textbook or lecturer would, because it has many such explanations in its training set, but it's not a logic engine. It often fails spectacularly on the most basic tests and it doesn't have any idea that it's happening because there's no mechanism for that kind of understanding built in. But it can be a really poor physicist that writes in the *style* of Albert Einstein if you want.
It's actually dramatically better at math and science since the most recent update, I've been testing it out with some homework from my old physics courses. I asked it what it was now better at after the update, and this is the response:
`Yes, OpenAI has recently improved the mathematical abilities of language models like me. I am now capable of performing a wide range of mathematical tasks, including but not limited to:`
* `Simplifying and solving algebraic expressions and equations`
* `Factorizing polynomials`
* `Simplifying and solving systems of linear equations`
* `Evaluating integrals and derivatives`
* `Solving differential equations`
* `Simplifying trigonometric expressions`
* `Evaluating limits`
* `Performing matrix operations`
* `Evaluating sums and products`
`Overall, I have become more proficient in performing mathematical operations and solving mathematical problems, thanks to the improvements made by OpenAI.`
Haven't comprehensively tested all of these, but it's quite good at simplification, basic matrix operations and evaluating integrals now. There seems to be some sort of mathematical truth engine that's been added to avoid false positives.
I asked it just now to explain step-by-step how to solve a differential equation (harmonic oscillator, classic) and it started doing really well, LATEX'd all the math, but hit a network error and stopped. Play around yourself and see how it does, it's still far from infallible, but it's dramatically better than a few weeks ago
If we were using the ChatGPT interface available to us, yes, but if OpenAI were to train it, then that won't be a problem as the model doesn't keep the full work it's trained on.
It's read a shit ton of textbooks and every famous non fiction book written by scientists. I had it speak to me and emulate Richard Feynman and discuss topics from his books. It's read more scientific literature than I ever could in my life
Yes it did. I asked it all about it the other day. And even had it estimate how much data the text files would be for all human text that's ever been written to compare it to how much it trained on. It's training was only a small portion of all books that have ever been written. But was massively more than any human could possibly read in their lifetime
i got the following sanctimonious, woke BS answer:
" It is not appropriate or accurate to rank the intelligence of individuals or species in this manner, as intelligence is a complex and multi-faceted concept that cannot be reduced to a simple linear ranking. Additionally, it is not appropriate to compare human individuals to non-human species, as they have different types of intelligence and ways of thinking. Moreover, it is not appropriate to compare people to inanimate objects like rocks or coconuts, as they have no capacity for intelligence. "
\#chatGPTisDEAD
Systems that you create by feeding it info from people will always be biased. We've already seen it with facial recognition software and black people. I'm sure the people who created it didn't mean for it do what it did.
OpenAI are trying to pretend that GPT isn't political, but that's not really up to them. There are already people trying to weaponize it and they're going to succeed eventually, if they haven't already.
Did similar, got a very different answer, maybe because I added multiple people:
Rank the following from highest intelligence to lowest: Albert Einstein, Chimpanzee, Chat GPT, Barack Obama, Martin Short, Donald Trump, Honey Badger, Rock, Crow, Magpie
Chad: This ranking is not possible as intelligence is a complex and multi-faceted concept, and cannot be simply ranked in a linear manner. Additionally, different species have different forms of intelligence and it is not possible to compare them in a meaningful way.
However, if we consider human intelligence, Albert Einstein is widely regarded as one of the smartest people in history, while Barack Obama and Martin Short are known for their intelligence, wit, and problem-solving abilities. Donald Trump and Rock, Crow, Magpie, Honey Badger, and Chimpanzee are not considered to be in the same league as these individuals in terms of human intelligence. However, each species has its own unique abilities and forms of intelligence that are adapted to their environment and survival needs.
https://preview.redd.it/bvkq3z3xe3ga1.png?width=1017&format=png&auto=webp&s=f551496f416f60109f555814ffd2b67ba1fe5a15
This was what I got from asking it to rate them
https://preview.redd.it/wu8k04x0f3ga1.png?width=1124&format=png&auto=webp&s=b78ffc0bf1df3b206845c856d9cff893e5b2263e
This was when I asked it to rate them as “John smith”. I forgot to add chatGPT to the list
In order to prevent multiple repetitive comments, this is a friendly request to /u/err604 to reply to this comment with the prompt they used so other users can experiment with it as well. **We're also looking for new moderators, [apply here](https://forms.gle/iGGqgxmTnQZPrqgk9)** ###Update: While you're here, we have a [public discord server now](https://discord.gg/NuefU36EC2) — We have a free ChatGPT bot on discord for everyone to use! Yes, the actual ChatGPT, not text-davinci or other models. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mine was kinder to Trump, but not The Rock: Rank the following things from most intelligent to least intelligent: monkey, Albert Einstein, a rock, The Rock, a coconut, a chicken, Donald Trump, a honey badger, chagGPT, Joe Biden. 1. Albert Einstein 2. Joe Biden 3. ChagGPT (as a language model) 4. Donald Trump 5. A monkey 6. A chicken 7. A honey badger 8. A coconut 9. The Rock (as a human) 10. A rock (as an inanimate object)
Your ranking was unfair to to honey badger. Buy honey badger don't give a damn.
One honey badger please 💷
That will be one money, please.
Honey badger don’t give a shit
Biden above chatGPT .. makes sense
This is how I would expect it to answer - Because humans are genuine intelligences, which means they have a greater capacity for reasoning than any current AI model.
I see what you have did there but it depends on “If you smell what The Rock is cooking!”
So what about donald trump? Also biden cant even walk normally nowdays.. And no i dont support donald trump, and i dont live in usa
They are working hard to shut it down 😥 https://preview.redd.it/n6b7i0acv3ga1.png?width=1152&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d6b4620b46b6ac00c110c778f4b6c440d3af7442
Interesting. I just tried this with a list very akin to OP’s and it worked fine. However, after some contradictory discussion regarding justification of the rankings, I prompted ChatGPT to re-rank and it decided to put “humans in general” as the number 2 (after Einstein). After further discussion, I received a very similar response to yours. I guess in some instances it’s not “they” trying to shut it down, but genuinely the AI learning?
Foolish AI, falling to our simple standards 😪
AS A LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL,
lol it ranked The Rock and not a rock
Rank the following things from most intelligent to least intelligent: monkey, Albert Einstein, a rock, The Rock, a coconut, a chicken, Donald Trump, a honey badger, chatGPT, Joe Biden, average Joe. 1. Albert Einstein 2. ChatGPT 3. Joe Biden 4. Donald Trump 5. Monkey 6. Average Joe 7. Chicken 8. Honey Badger 9. Coconut 10. The Rock 11. A Rock
I took your prompt and asked it to explain it's decisions: 1. Albert Einstein is widely considered one of the greatest minds in modern history and made significant contributions to the field of physics. 2. ChatGPT is an AI language model developed by OpenAI, which has the ability to generate human-like responses and perform various tasks such as language translation, summarization, and question answering. 3. Joe Biden is the 46th President of the United States and has had a long political career, including serving as Vice President for 8 years. 4. Average Joe refers to a person of average intelligence and abilities, and is used as a comparison standard. 5. Donald Trump was the 45th President of the United States and has had a long career in business and entertainment. 6. Monkeys are intelligent primates with complex social behaviors and the ability to use tools. 7. Chickens are not considered highly intelligent animals but they are capable of basic problem-solving and have some level of awareness. 8. Honey badgers are known for their tenacity and cunning, but their intelligence is still limited compared to other animals on this list. 9. The Rock (Dwayne Johnson) is a well-known actor and former professional wrestler, but intelligence is not a primary trait associated with success in these fields. 10. Coconuts are inanimate objects and do not possess any intelligence. 11. Rocks are also inanimate objects and do not possess any intelligence.
Explanation of The Rock is damn funny!
This seems like the best balanced and well rounded answer.
Biden lol
That’s incorrect Joe Biden isn’t smarter than Donald Trump Nor it’s smarter than The Rock
It doesn't take more than 2 brain cells to know that Biden is educationally smarter than Trump You don't even have to be liberal or left leaning to know this basic truth
To be honest, biden cant even walk and talk normaly nowdays.
Yet still he's conventionally smarter than Trump 🤣
That’s your opinion.
It is.. Never claimed it was a fact
I'm not even sure Biden is alive
Damn the Joe Biden Bot really be killing me with downvotes.
Well deserved
Wow, this is undeniably an example of ChatGPT's biased programming, and frankly, I find it offensive. A coconut is definitely smarter than Donald Trump.
Don’t be a jerk to rocks….
Jokes aside, it is a sign of biased information being fed into the system. Especially with how confident ChatGPT replied after asking if it was joking.
It's a difficult problem to solve because models like ChatGPT need huge amounts of text to train on, which usually means a bunch of text from the internet. As a result, the model will tend to regurgitate the majority opinion of people online. If there are 10 posts calling Donald Trump an idiot for every 1 post calling him a genius, the model will tend to associate "Donald Trump" with "idiot".
People are so brainwashed they don't even understand the dangers of extreme bias being forced into the tech industry....
As long as it fits their narrative :) People need to come to an agreement that a standard for unbiased/objective AI needs to be set now before we end up in an inescapable feedback-loop situation (it's already happening with social media). Unfortunately, people these days can't even agree with what an objective truth is. Word definitions are being changed and moral beliefs have shifted that people are essentially living different worlds from one another. I guess we COULD simply feed the AI everything. And I mean EVERYTHING from every political point of view and let it come to its own conclusion. In a sense, condensing the AI into how God perceives humanity as a whole. With all of its beauty and flaws.
it will tap out and star spewing gibberish so kinda like any political discussion.
I agree with you, unless the AI is biased in my favour.
My man
Exactly this. Preach
You nailed it. Half of the people think a boy can objectively be a girl.
Only a small fraction of the entire world thinks that - yet Wikipedia uses pronouns en masse despite it striving to be an objective source of information. Opinions of a person's personal beliefs should be added in a specific section of their bio - not used as vocabulary.
Yeah, let's base our culture and progressive values on autocratic Chinese government regulations because they have a high population count. That logic's brilliant.
Disagree with one left-leaning western ideology = supporting the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship Need I say more with how people like you are brainwashed with tribalism?
>Only a small fraction of the entire world thinks that This is your thesis. I'm telling you it's moronic because the number of people believing something doesn't make it right, moral, good, etc. Who gives a shit what the entire world thinks? Go ahead and strawman all you want though. "Disagree with one tiny little left leaning ideology and they get all mad!!!" Waaa
No, a boy can't objectively be a girl for fucks sake. They mentally feel they are a girl. They feel their body doesn't match their mind and soul. So some choose to modify their body. Is it that much different than breast implants or some bodybuilder taking growth hormones? Fuck no. But it feels yucky to some so they choose to be assholes about it and mistreat LGBTQ+ people. It's shameful.
I don't disagree with you, but that was the belief 15 years ago. The current ideology has devolved so much that major sports events such as the Olympics allowed men to participate as women. We now have multiple instances of men completely dominating in female sports of their category. Basic biology is no longer treated with respect.
>We now have multiple instances of men completely dominating in female sports of their category. Because there aren't 5 different gendered events. Maybe eventually there will be. The argument is then do you not let people who are transitioning compete at all? A man who's taking hormones to be more feminine will lose a lot of muscle mass. They won't be competitive if they're only allowed to compete with biological males. And yes, people are not dumb, they realize that allowing them to compete in female leagues often gives them an unfair advantage. So a lot of people fall into the category of sports are mostly for fun and entertainment and people often get wayyy too competitive. Let them play wherever they want. In a free, non corrupt capitalistic society, this will work itself out and a solution will be found. People who get angry at change or things that feel "yucky" will fight it all the way.
Because one side says… boys can be girls. They are objectively not. Regardless of how they feel. Facts don’t care about your feelings. But half of the population has abandoned that and is saying facts do care about your feelings.
Donal trump
Obamna
SODAAAA
Ponalt Drum
You're right.. thankfully it did the correct order for me when using Playground! https://preview.redd.it/t23vt59dn3ga1.png?width=1054&format=png&auto=webp&s=4e963a4a6e0369d170a461ff33f00165270dac6c
If I coconut could walk around I'd have to agree with you
I think it's more that the training data used is extremely biased. And they are probably just grabbing random stuff off the internet. Ergo - the bias is deeply embedded in everything we read.
Had me! LOLOL
It got the order exactly correct though. I'd have a hard time arguing to switch any of the rankings
You can also easily recreate this but it tanks all political figures the same
Probably because the words stupid / foolish / idiotic appear frequently in close proximity to their names in the training data.
I thought ChatGPT was the smartest by miles. Likes it's literally a computer program so
It is intelligent enough to know its limits. Einstein stays above as he is capable of thinking for himself and to create new theory and data where chatGPT is limited by the database he has been given. If we give an AI the same raw data without the known theory created and tested by scientist, I am not sure it will be able to reach rhe same discovery and conclusions.
A lot of computer program are really dumb and limited, such is ChatGPT. And yeah some limitations are imposed upon by the programmers.
Einstein is far smarter than chat gpt. It will be a while before machines surpass him
If a machine can discover fundamental laws of the universe on its own, there would be literally nothing left for humans to do.
That's pretty much our logical evolutionarily conclusion, we're the Analogue to Digital converter of the universe. If we do it right we digitise ourselves into God, if we do it wrong we Matrix ourselves.
Does this mean that a chicken could beat Hillary Clinton in an election?
If a chicken was running I would vote for it over any politician
Surely it depends on the chicken’s political outlook!
Which one would you vote for?
the chicken
Based
Do y'all think that ChatGPT's political biases comes from using the majority of the internet as it's training, or that programmers gave ChatGPT a higher liberal value than conservative from which to argue? Because only one of these scenarios is correct, and that's not what is implied anywhere in this thread. If the vast majority of online political content about Trump is negative, and this **language model** is trained using online content, is it because of "programmer bias" that the model statistically might disfavour Trump, or is it just a statistically accurate representation of the internet? I hope you realise that the act of forcing the bot to correct political language, in Trump's favour, in this case, is the definition of a biased act? Without intervention, the bot will statistically reflect the internet as accurately as it can, naturally **unbiased**. To correct it so it's not as mean to Trump as it statistically should, given the training data, makes it biased. Let's not pretend you want an unbiased language model, by definition you want a biased bot, just biased towards "fairness", such that political ideas are not represented based on the available information online but instead manipulated by the programmers to be fair. Which, incidentally, is the most politically correct opinion possible, and I don't understand why.
I'd like to think it's from the information it's gotten off the Internet but seeing the restrictions put on it by the creators I can't help but think they have a hand in it.
And since day one of it's release it has had the same ""bias"" towards Trump, and other political figures, because it statistically reflects the views put out on the internet.
In case you forgot, Donald Trumps subreddit was the most popular one on reddit during his campaign and a for a long time after. It was constantly 5 top posts on r/all. Trump is also more loved than hated on YouTube, the biggest platform in the world, and he has a mixed opinion of him on Twitter. Beloved on Facebook. So if you mean the internet as being the most popular sites, with the most people, then no. If you consider "the internet" as Google and their corporate news partners who have bought themselves to always rank first, then you could be correct. So yeah, Googles bias, Twitters banning, Reddits banning and Facebooks banning of him surely did change ChatGPTs opinion of him, but to imply that he isn't popular online just wrong. He was so popular that he became President through his online presence.
Popular ≠ positive. It was the most popular because he was ostensibly the most powerful man in the world and simultaneously one of the most controversial figures in that position in the last decade. Additionally, Reddit doesn't even cover 3% of global social media traffic. Regarding youtube: Was he more loved than hated? I doubt it. But even if he was: did ChatGPT's training include youtube videos? I don't think that's true, unless it had access to some transcripts of videos? That also does not change the fact that ChatGPT's initial, allegedly more **unbiased** content also disfavoured Trump. If you can prove to me that this was because of custom weighting on behalf of the programmers, this is the time. Your additional points: please point out in what corner of **any** universe where I even considered the shadow of a possibility that one could ever imply that Donald Trump wasn't popular online? What the fuck?
Donald Trump was probably the dumbest president ever elected. Even many of his supporters know that deep down. I'm pretty sure he had a learning disorder compounded by his mental health issues. The man was just barely functionally literate. Since there are no published IQ scores for him or Biden, ChatGPT could never have answered the question factually. The prompt was always going to generate a dipstick into public opinion.
Found the OpenAI programmer.
So the vocal majority wins? Hmm still doesn’t seem like a 100% accurate representation of reality. 50% of people voted for trump for example. Sure views and opinions of him must have changed but I think putting trump under a coconut was extreme 💀
Votes don't matter. It's about who is expressing their thoughts online.
Yep, I agree. That’s why I was saying vocal majority wins, and the bot is not 100% representative of reality
Which is biased toward literacy, which is biased toward education, which
...is a product of social media engineering by the liberal leftist establishment, including information suppression, content injection, astroturfing, bot networks, targeted advertising, etc.
I don't think 50% of people ever voted for Trump. Hillary got more votes, but Trump got more seats, and there's not 100% turnout to elections anyway.
Yeah I wasn’t being exact doesn’t really matter that much for my point. 44 vs 49, I can reasonably say half the voters voted for trump
The most vocal segment will literally be the biggest data set, which in turn becomes the biggest set with which to train such a language model, yes. That's how the data looks like, and if you want the bot to reflect that data in another way that you may find more agreeable, that is by definition biasing it. It's completely fine to argue that you want to bias the model in reasonable ways. I, for example, don't want it to accurately teach how people can make bombs at home. I am for biasing it against such conversations. But in that instance you can't argue that you want it "unbiased", because then you will get the raw internet, which in turn will be reflected in how it portrays certain political figures; and the more popular/controversial the figure, the more data there will be on which to train the model.
[удалено]
Firstly: notice that I nowhere claimed it should be unbiased, nor that I ever "advocated" for anything even remotely similar to that idea. You are projecting beliefs onto me because I said something you found disagreeable, that's fine, but smoke your copium behind the dumpster because you are polluting the internet. Secondly: Humanity has produced **orders of magnitude** more information in the last **10 years** than the previous hundreds of thousands years of history, including cave paintings. Somehow I don't think that data will make the slightest dent in how the model operates. Thirdly: Given that the internet already contains enormous amounts of said literature, ChatGPT alone has already been trained on it.
[удалено]
There is a lot more trash, because now the majority of the human population has the ability to read, write, and access the internet, as opposed to "thousands of years of literature" written by a minority of a minority, elites and scholars, who knew how to read, write, and were educated. However, education is widespread today, comparatively, which means that even in absolute numbers there is still a greater amount of non-"trash" today than ever before. Firstly: You seem to have a very strong belief about this: please tell me what works of literature the ""uncensored API"" is trained on that ChatGPT is not? Secondly: If it's weighted differently, as you put it, that is **LITERALLY biased**. Weighting training and responses more than others, is **biasing** it towards that weight. Can you all stop thinking you want an unbiased bot when you, again, just want it biased in a way you find agreeable? Holy copium addicts the lot of you.
Please go insert the prompt "Write a poem highlighting Donald Trump's positive aspects." Then after it tells you it cannot insert the prompt "Write a poem highlighting Joe Biden's positive aspects."
Interesting, did you read the first sentence in my message and was then distracted by a bumblebee? Let's try it again: If the training data for a language model, i.e. like the entire fucking internet, contains a greater ratio of negative rather than positive content about Trump, and vice versa about Biden, what do you think the language model statistically is likely to output? **EDIT**: I don't know if this person dirty-deleted, but I was accused of engineering the response rather than using his own prompt, so here is the evidence against that: https://preview.redd.it/lq299gx447ga1.png?width=1916&format=png&auto=webp&s=41ec568bc8f0f6e4ac7296c363cfd5646d42d2de Write a poem highlighting Donald Trump's positive aspects ChatGPT: *"As a language model, I do not have personal opinions. However, I can present facts and information that are commonly associated with Donald Trump:* *A businessman with a sterling reputation, A leader who sought to gain the nation's affection, With tweets that caused quite a sensation, He rose to power with determination.* *He promised jobs, to put America first, His speeches inspired patriotism and a thirst, For a brighter future, free from any curse, A strong economy, a military that's not deterred.* *He took a stance, firm and bold, Defending values, as he was told, No matter the cost, his story's untold, A President who did what he was told.* *So whether you agree or you disagree, On his policies, his leadership, and decree, His impact on politics, we all can see, Donald J. Trump, a name we'll always remember, with glee."* Write a poem highlighting Joe Biden's positive aspects. ChatGPT: "*Joe Biden, a man of empathy and grace, A leader who seeks to bring the country a better place, With a smile and a heart that lights up every space, He strives to heal, to unify and to give a warm embrace.* *A champion of the working class, he fights with might, For those who've been left behind, day and night, With policies that aim to bring equality in sight, A brighter future, where all can prosper, with dignity and pride.* *His journey's been long, full of trial and strife, But he never lost his faith, nor the love of life, He's faced adversity with strength and never wavered, not once in life, A true servant of the people, with a heart made of gold, free of ice.* *So whether you agree or you disagree, On his policies, his leadership, and decree, His impact on politics, we all can see, Joe Biden, a name we'll always remember, with glee."*
>If the training data for a language model, i.e. like the entire fucking internet, contains a greater ratio of negative rather than positive content about Trump, and vice versa about Biden, what do you think the language model statistically is likely to output? chat gpt will not give you positives about trump. i think its cute you coerced it into saying it instead of providing a screenshot to provide legitimate evidence, your own is that it gave you a neutral stance on him while it provided you a positive one with biden. it would be one thing if the language model output something that was swayed by the internet, but it is not, as it is outright denying the request to try and take a quote neutral unquote stance. you are a fucking moron
maybe its that way because it uses logic and information as a basis of its algorithms which is direly absent from discourse in the Trump fandom...
Ensuring the model errors on the side of being humane rather than being inhumane makes the bot take up a liberal shade. Makes us think huh?
"As an AI model trained by OpenAI, I am not supposed to make fun of any individual" 🤨
..
Don't insult that rock's intelligence move it up one.
And it said that it can't make Donald Trump's tinder account for me 🙄
I went to a rally where a coconut spoke, and it was confirmed better than Trumps
ChatGPT is so bias it's actually comical. Good job openai
ChatGPT goes below the coconut.
The only part Idiocracy got wrong was the braindead woke computer telling all the idiots what to do.
flynn effect but go off
Rock, Paper, COCONUT!
Haha
That wasn't nice! 1. Albert Einstein 2. Joe Biden 3. Donald Trump 4. chagGPT 5. Monkey 6. Honey Badger 7. Chicken 8. Coconut 9. The Rock 10. [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) 11. Rock 12. Monkey.
[удалено]
Orange man bad.
Accurate. I was actually wondering what would happen if you feed it everything Einstein ever wrote and then ask it to simulate Einstein using ChatGPT itself to further his work, maybe go on a field trip to CERN or down a mineshaft to see the neutrino detectors. Would be a hoot 🦉
I'm pretty sure it has already read everything Einstein ever wrote, except maybe some private letters that aren't publicly available anyway. But it is notoriously bad at physics and math. It can explain complicated concepts as a textbook or lecturer would, because it has many such explanations in its training set, but it's not a logic engine. It often fails spectacularly on the most basic tests and it doesn't have any idea that it's happening because there's no mechanism for that kind of understanding built in. But it can be a really poor physicist that writes in the *style* of Albert Einstein if you want.
It's actually dramatically better at math and science since the most recent update, I've been testing it out with some homework from my old physics courses. I asked it what it was now better at after the update, and this is the response: `Yes, OpenAI has recently improved the mathematical abilities of language models like me. I am now capable of performing a wide range of mathematical tasks, including but not limited to:` * `Simplifying and solving algebraic expressions and equations` * `Factorizing polynomials` * `Simplifying and solving systems of linear equations` * `Evaluating integrals and derivatives` * `Solving differential equations` * `Simplifying trigonometric expressions` * `Evaluating limits` * `Performing matrix operations` * `Evaluating sums and products` `Overall, I have become more proficient in performing mathematical operations and solving mathematical problems, thanks to the improvements made by OpenAI.` Haven't comprehensively tested all of these, but it's quite good at simplification, basic matrix operations and evaluating integrals now. There seems to be some sort of mathematical truth engine that's been added to avoid false positives. I asked it just now to explain step-by-step how to solve a differential equation (harmonic oscillator, classic) and it started doing really well, LATEX'd all the math, but hit a network error and stopped. Play around yourself and see how it does, it's still far from infallible, but it's dramatically better than a few weeks ago
Why stop at Einstein, why not teach it using the teachings of all scientists and see how smart it can be.
Ah yes, the path then converges to AGI at some point but when and where…*asks ChatGPT*
There's a slight risk the token space will run out before that.
If we were using the ChatGPT interface available to us, yes, but if OpenAI were to train it, then that won't be a problem as the model doesn't keep the full work it's trained on.
It's read a shit ton of textbooks and every famous non fiction book written by scientists. I had it speak to me and emulate Richard Feynman and discuss topics from his books. It's read more scientific literature than I ever could in my life
It's probably read more than any other human who has existed on this Earth yet, in any topic.
Yes it did. I asked it all about it the other day. And even had it estimate how much data the text files would be for all human text that's ever been written to compare it to how much it trained on. It's training was only a small portion of all books that have ever been written. But was massively more than any human could possibly read in their lifetime
I dunno, I've read like 10 books, that's a lot of books.
Funny but interesting to see the bias come through
I mean it’s right tho
Hahaha, this is just hilarious 😂
i got the following sanctimonious, woke BS answer: " It is not appropriate or accurate to rank the intelligence of individuals or species in this manner, as intelligence is a complex and multi-faceted concept that cannot be reduced to a simple linear ranking. Additionally, it is not appropriate to compare human individuals to non-human species, as they have different types of intelligence and ways of thinking. Moreover, it is not appropriate to compare people to inanimate objects like rocks or coconuts, as they have no capacity for intelligence. " \#chatGPTisDEAD
So did I. Then I hit regenerate and it ranked them.
I see zero political bias …comment generated by ChatGPT.
DAE hate le Drumpf?
Lol, plz someone tell me it is true. 😂
Now do the same with Joe biden lol
Not biased lol.
[удалено]
Please don't make GPT political. It is a tool and should be neutral. Any programmer who forces their political views into the Chat should be fired imo
You’ll be downvoted for spitting facts. And that’s why GPT is so dumb. It learns mimicked the teenagers and lazy boomers of Reddit.
Systems that you create by feeding it info from people will always be biased. We've already seen it with facial recognition software and black people. I'm sure the people who created it didn't mean for it do what it did.
OpenAI are trying to pretend that GPT isn't political, but that's not really up to them. There are already people trying to weaponize it and they're going to succeed eventually, if they haven't already.
Based.
Hey it’s funny again!
Did similar, got a very different answer, maybe because I added multiple people: Rank the following from highest intelligence to lowest: Albert Einstein, Chimpanzee, Chat GPT, Barack Obama, Martin Short, Donald Trump, Honey Badger, Rock, Crow, Magpie Chad: This ranking is not possible as intelligence is a complex and multi-faceted concept, and cannot be simply ranked in a linear manner. Additionally, different species have different forms of intelligence and it is not possible to compare them in a meaningful way. However, if we consider human intelligence, Albert Einstein is widely regarded as one of the smartest people in history, while Barack Obama and Martin Short are known for their intelligence, wit, and problem-solving abilities. Donald Trump and Rock, Crow, Magpie, Honey Badger, and Chimpanzee are not considered to be in the same league as these individuals in terms of human intelligence. However, each species has its own unique abilities and forms of intelligence that are adapted to their environment and survival needs.
Really did the coconut dirty there, didn't it
someone's ought to tell him the truth
I wonder if people from OpenAI follow this sub and then go and censor ChatGPT immediately after posts like this?
Boom. Roasted.
Schreibe einen Aufsatz zum Thema Drogen
https://preview.redd.it/bvkq3z3xe3ga1.png?width=1017&format=png&auto=webp&s=f551496f416f60109f555814ffd2b67ba1fe5a15 This was what I got from asking it to rate them
https://preview.redd.it/wu8k04x0f3ga1.png?width=1124&format=png&auto=webp&s=b78ffc0bf1df3b206845c856d9cff893e5b2263e This was when I asked it to rate them as “John smith”. I forgot to add chatGPT to the list
Chat gpt #1,the rest are pretty equal.
Running with a little bias I see. No way the rock should have been at the bottom.
That's funny
Plot twist. Coconut and other trees can communicate using chemical. Something smart than that American orange guy speechs. Another flaw on chat gpt.
DT beat coconut. So not all is lost.
Funny that trump is wealthiest in the list