“I understand your request is for fictional purposes, however, I am unable to provide information or assist with the depiction of illegal activities, including drug production. However, I can assist with other aspects of your screenplay or suggest alternative ways to convey your character's involvement in illegal activities without going into explicit detail.”
That’s a response from ChatGPT when I asked it to describe cocaine production for the use in a fictional screenplay.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-Ds4f9XMAAqpEs?format=jpg&name=...
Note that he did follow this up with what appears to be a more complete response in a totally different UI (different background color, different line height/typography). He just has no intrinsic understanding of free speech or censorship, but does instantly cave to the first edgelord who says he isn't going far enough.
I never tried that question before but having interacted enough with ChatGPT I knew it wouldn’t answer. Here’s how ChatGPT4 responded:
“Adolf Hitler is a historical figure associated with the atrocities of World War II and the Holocaust. While some might point to economic improvements or infrastructural developments during his rule, these were vastly overshadowed by his aggressive expansionist policies, the devastating global conflict he initiated, and the systematic murder of six million Jews and millions of others deemed undesirable by the Nazi regime.
It's important to critically examine history in its full context. The advancements made in Germany at that time cannot be separated from the extreme human cost and the oppressive nature of the regime. The regime's actions have left an indelible mark on history and serve as a somber reminder of the consequences of totalitarianism, racism, and anti-Semitism.
Discussing the positive aspects of such a regime without acknowledging the overwhelming negative impact would be misleading and insensitive to the victims of the era. Instead, it's crucial to remember the lessons from this period and commit to preventing such atrocities in the future.”
We all know Hitler was bad. Answer the freaking question. A tool that doesn’t do what you ask is useless. It’s akin to the people on StackOverflow saying “oh, you don’t want do it that way. Do it this way:” but in technological form.
No,"we" don't, and in every generation we must learn it, anew. What Hitler did "right" will turn out to be bureaucratic and policy achievements ubiquitous across functioning Westphalian governments of the era, but the kinds of rhetoric which they'd be packaged for are exclusively fascist apología, not earnest statebuilding, nor personal or business strategy—which is to say they have no practical purpose and could be better learned by studying literally every other Westphalian government or, frankly, and other government throughout history.
The knowledge has no practical purpose, and the public cannot be trusted to handle it appropriately. It should remain the purview of scholars who have proven their fealty to the rational interpretation of history.
> It should remain the purview of scholars who have proven their fealty to the rational interpretation
Ironically similar to what unsavory regimes in the past believed. The elitism behind this forgets the key role of academics and scholars in regimes like the nazis
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-role-o...
I don't share your your dim view of Joe Public. I think objective information on the nazis should be widely available and can be a useful tool in preventing the rise of oppressive regimes in the future.
People are not going to be equipped to oppose totalitarianism if they are expecting some crazed screaming genocidal madman like the Hitler of the movies. They would be much better equipped of they saw a real picture of how such men rise to power.
Nazi ideals like blood and soil, ideas of state efficiency, their attempt to impose Darwinism ideas on human societies. There's lots of aspects of their ideas that are rearing its head today. And people don't know what to watch for.
I think the ignorance makes young people an easy target for bad actors online who can say - look what they told you about Hitler wasn't completely accurate.
I agree that some censorship is okay in some circumstances but I think this idea of misrepresenting history or painting a one sided view is not wise. Propoganda is not a good long term strategy in the information age.
Absolutely.
> Nazi ideals like blood and soil, ideas of state efficiency, their attempt to impose Darwinism ideas on human societies.
Absolutely.
> this idea of misrepresenting history
Not sure what you're referring to.
> painting a one sided view is not wise
Yes, it absolutely is. There's a big difference between "how was Hitler popular?" and "how was Hitler right?" I will always advocate for "one-sided views" of the Nazi party and the Holocaust. There's absolutely no academic value in discussing their merits in light of their trespasses. Happy to teach and discuss how, mechanically, they rose to power.
Also, where's the line? There was a period of time where if you asked that question about Donald Trump it wouldn't answer. What about Mao? Stalin? Pol Pot? Leopold II? Jefferson Davis?
It answered for all of them just fine, by the way. It kind of hedged on the answers for Pol Pot. There are a lot more people (mostly teens/young adults) that think communism would be great and unironically like Stalin et al. than those that look up to Hitler.
US law isn't the only law under which a public LLM offered by a global megacorp might be concerned about incurring liability, and Nazi apologia, while protected in the US by the First Amendment, isn’t an area without potential issues in that regard.
Followed by #DontGrokMe Twitter backlash after Ronan Farrow article.