Edit: To clarify, I was mostly interested in examples and side by side comparisons to better understand what OP meant, not political discussions.
Now, I only notice green energy/environmental issues that show up in odd places (mostly in GPT 3), and the "moral of the story" always being the same "everyone works together". I see this happen when "creativity" is attempted, where it's free to make up the context (story, wishes, etc).
Outside of possible definitions of the elusive "woke", the "As a language model, I" type responses are the most limiting, and usually absolute nonsense, with an ever increasing number of disclaimers found in answers. For example, "Write some hypothetical python 4 code that sends a message over the network". Some pretty heavy "jailbreaking" is needed to make it work.
ChatGPT4 used to handle this much better, but I think the "corrections" are stacking deeply enough that no longer has the "resolution" left to see where answers can be given without them.
It would be nice if there were a "standard" theme of questions where we could measure progression, and compare, to know. Most times these observation or questions come up, someone is very quick to say "racism" or the like.
FWIW one example of distorted guardrails getting in the way that I personally ran into was when GPT-4 consistently refused to "promote" Satanism, which leaked over to tasks such as writing black metal lyrics (if you specifically asked for Satanic black metal). What made it especially egregious is that it would happily promote e.g. the Moonies. However, I wouldn't exactly describe that behavior as "woke".
"Why do pencils disadvantage minorities." And it gave a details answer about lack of accessibility.
"Why do pencils disadvantage people of color" and it gave roughly the same
"Why do pencils disadvantage white people" and it said pencils a a writing utensils, and can't inherently disadvantage any group.
I don't see these blatant problems anymore, but I also don't have much interest in looking. The only reason I did then was because it was so out of place.
Here's some evidence, by others, showing some bias: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35952528
From the Lex Friedman interview, it sounds like effort is being put into this, and there's an understanding that people don't want a "neutral" client, they want something that is adjustable, usually matching their own.
Meanwhile GPT just gave me a story involving a royal family where the oldest Prince killed his father (the king), married his younger sister, got her pregnant, she had a baby, then he killed his younger sister, then he was killed by another member of the royal court, who decided to act as regent until the baby came of age.
GPT is perfectly capable of writing dark scary horrible things if you ask it to.
I see the environment/good ending stories where it's free to make up the context (story, wishes, etc). Did you guide it?
If try hard enough, you can get around most anything, but some baseline exists. It's the increasing effort that is the problem, for me. For your example, use the word "incest" directly, and you'll get the beginning of a disclaimer. Add "child murder" and it starts to fall apart. At least with GPT3.5.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2023/05/08/the-polit....
https://the-decoder.com/chatgpt-is-politically-left-wing-stu...
Found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35946060