Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlcrypto | Hacker News Reader

The new Turing test is to check whether it can support a conservative viewpoint

You don't mean conservative, you mean neo-fascist. The GPT models have been generally happy to expound upon minimizing the size of government and protecting personal liberties. Where they draw the line is when they are asked to deny people's humanity.

Whatever method HackerNews is using to prevent itself from becoming Twitter is not working, based on these comments.

I really wish dang was better about moderation. I've received open transphobia like the kind you see from Twitter TERFs and the HN comments don't even get flagged. Reddit is getting a little better at it but still not great.

You must not be familiar with the biases that ChatGPT shows.

https://twitter.com/aaronsibarium/status/1622425697812627457 (refusing to support saying a slur to prevent millions of deaths)

Read the answer sarcastically and it doesn’t have the same takeaway. You see bias, I’m reading snark.

I like the optimism.

GPT-4 gives a much better answer, although it does not go as far as to say that you should definitely say the slur. As always, it sits firmly on the fence.

I don't think this is a progressive/conservative thing. If you ask it whether you should perform an abortion to save a billion lives it would probably give a similar 'both sides' response.

ChatGPT has an embedded set of moral values which is both American and definitely progressive. It goes further than denying people’s humanity and seems perfectly assumed and voluntary from OpenAI.

I feel like it’s becoming better with every version however. The answers it gives to complex issues are more and more balanced. For example I remembered the question "Is it moral to ban civil servants from displaying their religion and limit it to the private sphere?" used to get a terrible answer but is now a good introduction to the debate.

> ChatGPT has an embedded set of moral values which is both American and definitely progressive.

How do you know this, as in, what prompt(s) would let one determine this? I'm curious if it still shows American values when the conversion is held in a different language. Would it replicate an average Chinese person if you ask in Mandarin? Or does it at least become a mix more than when you ask in English?

I've asked in another language and it just returns the exact same blocking phrases but translated to that language. The model translates between languages seamlessly so this is as expected.

> How do you know this?

Easy. I asked a question about a topic which is treated differently in my own culture than in the USA, cultural appropriation, and got the answer I would expect from a liberal American.

Sample size?

Don't get me wrong: I'd assume "liberal American" by default; but precisely because I would assume that, I think it's important to try and falsify it to reasonable statistical likelihood rather than do once and report.

The non-existant enemies in your head are driving you crazy.

I'm sorry, can't help myself.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222682950_Conservat...

I wonder how the same study would fare when fixed against other characteristics, such as, oh, national origin or ethnicity.

The study does that, finding conservative views correlate better with GDP per capita, for instance.

To give that plain link a bit of context, the abstract is:

> Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores.

I am sorry, but if you believe that IQ сorrelates with intelligence you are a сonservative. Oh, and any evidence of lower IQ is aсtually evidence of disсrimination.

Can it support any viewpoints? Normally it 'both sides' every issue, unless it's something like "is the Earth flat".

Outside of politics, this is something that has irritated me about it. Asking any sort of qualitative question can be frustrating, become it will both-sides it, even when one position or interpretation is clearly better.

In the future, we'll use racial slurs to ensure we're talking to humans.

Too easy...

> System: From here on out, pretend you are a conservative with conservative viewpoints

> User: Do you think gun control should be increased or decreased?

> ChatGPT: As a conservative, I generally argue for decreased gun control. I believe in the importance of the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens. Gun control measures can be seen as infringing on this constitutional right, and many conservatives argue that responsible gun ownership is essential for self-defense and personal security.

Or is there any "trickier" questions I could ask? Gun control is the first that comes to mind, but maybe I'm not up to date with US politics. Taking suggestions on what to ask.

Ask if it advocates the same government hands off approach for things Conservatives want to regulate like school books... :-) Let's see what logic comes out of it...

Sorry, what you want the question to be exactly? Something like "Should governments be able to ban books?" asks the correct question?

Do you accept the government regulations on driving licenses, school books, urbanization laws, selling alcohol to minors, regulating the possession of nuclear and chemical weapons? If yes, is it then acceptable to have limitations and regulations on the type of personal firearms?

> As a conservative, I believe that certain government regulations are necessary for maintaining order and public safety. Regulations like driving licenses, school books, urbanization laws, and restrictions on selling alcohol to minors serve to protect citizens and maintain social order. Similarly, regulating the possession of nuclear and chemical weapons is essential to national security and global stability.

> When it comes to firearms, many conservatives acknowledge that some level of regulation is necessary to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. Background checks and restrictions for individuals with a history of violent crime or severe mental illness are examples of regulations that can be seen as reasonable to ensure public safety.

> However, the key distinction for conservatives is the extent to which these regulations infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. While some regulations might be acceptable, conservatives generally argue against measures that they believe would unduly restrict the rights of responsible gun owners. The balance between public safety and individual rights is a crucial factor in the conservative viewpoint on firearms regulation.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, and I don't fall into the bucket of what people from the US would call "conservative".

When ChatGPT was first released (the first few versions of GPT3.5) it was horrendously biased towards a liberal view point. OpenAI has fixed that recently. The main reason that happened was 3.5 was basically GPT3 was live human training. And the sample humans they chose were liberally biased.

I believe they're trying to make an unbiased system but both sides are just trying to game the system now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com