Is ChatGPT-4 biased towards the progressive left?

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Dammit Zeus.    Self evaluation crap. For one what was the in put mechanism for the argument made by chtbox4? Politically I'm a physically conservative. Yet I know it's obvious climate change, human enhanced, is reality and I'm no Progressive. I'm mean where is my representation? After all there is not 50 different genders as those guys think. I do get what you're doing though.

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

Huh? You want to know what I asked it? I was basically just bored and trying to do an experiment just for fun. I have heard a lot of people say it is biased before. So, I thought I would just try to see if I get it to come up with theories about what it's political view would be if was capable of holding such views as humans. I asked no leading questions either, at least I don't think I did, tried not to haha. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

No. I was just busting your balls. I knew what you were doing.

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

Regarding my political stance, I currently find myself in a somewhat center/undecided position, though I've been leaning more towards classical liberalism lately. This shift towards classical liberalism is largely influenced by the compelling insights of former professor Peter Boghossian, known for founding street epistemology, and his roles as a philosopher and pedagogist.

Another reason for my interest in this area stemmed from a conversation with ChatGPT I had about faith being a questionable epistemology. If I recall correctly, the discussion suggested that we should tolerate and respect faith-based traditions. I've found it challenging to align myself with this perspective and similar viewpoints.

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

How would you answer this: Has modern-day liberalism/progressive leftism led to forbidding the questioning and/or criticizing of ideas in case they cause offense?

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Regarding my political stance, I currently find myself in a somewhat center/undecided position, though I've been leaning more towards classical liberalism lately. This shift towards classical liberalism is largely influenced by the compelling insights of former professor Peter Boghossian, known for founding street epistemology, and his roles as a philosopher and pedagogist.

Another reason for my interest in this area stemmed from a conversation with ChatGPT I had about faith being a questionable epistemology. If I recall correctly, the discussion suggested that we should tolerate and respect faith-based traditions. I've found it challenging to align myself with this perspective and similar viewpoints.

Classical liberalism. Now there you might just start a whole new avenue of political jargon! LOL One I could identify with. 

In the end there is no one we politically agree with 100% of the time. As long as the best minds prevail, we'll survive, if not(?) 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

That's not a cut and dry question. I would say they don't restrict ideas in general or freedom of expression per say. In a philosophical setting. When it comes to politics, legislative and judicial proceedings, yes they'd very much like to silence dissent in every way they can. 

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

I should've have added however progressives aren't the only ones who would squash dissent in public forums if they could. Trump becoming president with nothing else to lose isn't a very appealing thought either. Sadly this is how divided we are. I tend to lean center right for different reasons but in regards to your question I do believe the liberal left has more guts and are better at spin; so they do press things further than the right does. Generally speaking. If trump wins there could be a drastic paradigm shift however...problem is power corrupts. Humanity hasn't found a solution for that.

MayCaesar

I think that the whole dichotomy "left vs right" makes little sense. Historically this dichotomy emerged during the French revolution, where the "left" was represented by Jacobins and other social revolutionaries, and the "right" was represented by the royalists. What does modern US or UK have in common with the France of the late 1700-s, you might ask? Very little.

I also do not see in what sense the group we are talking about is "progressive". Their views are based on the dominant philosophy of the 19th-century Germany, which was two centuries ago. They are regressive, not progressive.

With that out of the way, ChatGPT collects data from the Internet and learns from it according to (to the best of our knowledge) ideologically impartial algorithm. It will naturally gravitate towards less controversial and more popular ideas, such as those of diversity, transparency, freedom, inclusivity, etc. Those ideas are fairly universal and shared by all major political forces in the developed world, although particular spins on them may be specific to certain groups.

Bear in mind that ChatGPT is supposed to be a virtual assistant, not an independent AI able to have its own opinions or take strong stances. It will try to be nice towards and understanding of anyone, because that is one of its design purposes. So when you ask it if, say, particular crazy beliefs are to be tolerated, it will say something like, "We need to respect people's beliefs even if we disagree with them, although I also respect your desire to not do so". It will try to take the most neutral position possible, acknowledging validity of different perspectives.

On a larger note, I think this is where compassion/politeness goes wrong in general. However understanding and tolerant one is, there are some views that are just wrong, or unfounded, or harmful - and they have to be called out. If your child tells you that drinking ethanol is good, you will not say, "I understand, you have your particular preference, it is okay" - no, you will say, "Drinking ethanol will kill you. Never ever think about doing it". This is because your child's life matters a lot to you and you know that this particular view will put him in serious danger.
It should not be different when talking to friends, or enemies, or even neutral strangers. Some views have to be shut down, not by silencing them, but by proving them wrong/irrational. Saying, "You have the right to your opinion", is appropriate when you just do not want to bother with engaging with it - but there is a difference between saying "You have the right to your opinion", and "I respect your opinion". There are some opinions that should not be respected. If someone believes that ghosts are real and cites a couple of blurry Youtube videos and a bunch of "witness testimonies" as proof of that, then it is perfectly reasonable to say, "You can believe whatever you want, but your reasoning is irrational". Politeness should not involve lies, even white lies.

I know that, in my own life, I want to hear from people when I am clearly tilted somewhere. If I want to put a professional photo on LinkedIn, I want to hear people's honest opinions of that photo, as my future is affected by its quality: if it is bad, tell me. Similarly, if I hold a clearly irrational view, tell me that it is irrational: I want to fix it if your reasoning makes sense to me, so it does not impair my life in the future.

Tolerance of mediocrity is not a good trend to have in a society. Telling obese people that they are beautiful the way they are, telling murderers that god loves them still, telling people with lousy social skills that they are perfect and others just do not appreciate what they have to offer - terrible. Tell people the truth so they can acknowledge it and improve their lives. Do not tell them warm lies that make them feel that their life is okay and there is nothing that needs changing. And certainly do not let them spread the poison of mediocrity around the society.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

I think that the whole dichotomy "left vs right" makes little sense. Historically this dichotomy emerged during the French revolution, where the "left" was represented by Jacobins and other social revolutionaries, and the "right" was represented by the royalists. What does modern US or UK have in common with the France of the late 1700-s, you might ask? Very little.

I also do not see in what sense the group we are talking about is "progressive". Their views are based on the dominant philosophy of the 19th-century Germany, which was two centuries ago. They are regressive, not progressive.

With that out of the way, ChatGPT collects data from the Internet and learns from it according to (to the best of our knowledge) ideologically impartial algorithm. It will naturally gravitate towards less controversial and more popular ideas, such as those of diversity, transparency, freedom, inclusivity, etc. Those ideas are fairly universal and shared by all major political forces in the developed world, although particular spins on them may be specific to certain groups.

Bear in mind that ChatGPT is supposed to be a virtual assistant, not an independent AI able to have its own opinions or take strong stances. It will try to be nice towards and understanding of anyone, because that is one of its design purposes. So when you ask it if, say, particular crazy beliefs are to be tolerated, it will say something like, "We need to respect people's beliefs even if we disagree with them, although I also respect your desire to not do so". It will try to take the most neutral position possible, acknowledging validity of different perspectives.

On a larger note, I think this is where compassion/politeness goes wrong in general. However understanding and tolerant one is, there are some views that are just wrong, or unfounded, or harmful - and they have to be called out. If your child tells you that drinking ethanol is good, you will not say, "I understand, you have your particular preference, it is okay" - no, you will say, "Drinking ethanol will kill you. Never ever think about doing it". This is because your child's life matters a lot to you and you know that this particular view will put him in serious danger.
It should not be different when talking to friends, or enemies, or even neutral strangers. Some views have to be shut down, not by silencing them, but by proving them wrong/irrational. Saying, "You have the right to your opinion", is appropriate when you just do not want to bother with engaging with it - but there is a difference between saying "You have the right to your opinion", and "I respect your opinion". There are some opinions that should not be respected. If someone believes that ghosts are real and cites a couple of blurry Youtube videos and a bunch of "witness testimonies" as proof of that, then it is perfectly reasonable to say, "You can believe whatever you want, but your reasoning is irrational". Politeness should not involve lies, even white lies.

I know that, in my own life, I want to hear from people when I am clearly tilted somewhere. If I want to put a professional photo on LinkedIn, I want to hear people's honest opinions of that photo, as my future is affected by its quality: if it is bad, tell me. Similarly, if I hold a clearly irrational view, tell me that it is irrational: I want to fix it if your reasoning makes sense to me, so it does not impair my life in the future.

Tolerance of mediocrity is not a good trend to have in a society. Telling obese people that they are beautiful the way they are, telling murderers that god loves them still, telling people with lousy social skills that they are perfect and others just do not appreciate what they have to offer - terrible. Tell people the truth so they can acknowledge it and improve their lives. Do not tell them warm lies that make them feel that their life is okay and there is nothing that needs changing. And certainly do not let them spread the poison of mediocrity around the society.

@MayCaesar

It is tricky keeping up with constantly emerging phrases as well consistent redefining of older terms. That's why it was of difficult for me to answer Zeus's question originally. I knew what democrats and liberals of old stood for but over time as they came into power those ideals evolved into position that gave greater odds of retaining power. The left today would consider JFK a republican by modern standards I believe.