Not a big fan of deferring morality to ChatGPT or any AI.
Great choice of words. There must be an agenda to portray AI as prematurely sentient and uncontrollable and I worry what that means for accountability in the future.
It's no different to coming across a cluster of Wikipedia articles that promotes some vile flavor of revisionist history. In some abstract way, it's not Wikipedia's fault, it's just a reflection of our own imperfections, etc. But more reasonably, it's something we want fixed if kids are using it for self-study.
There are similarities, I agree, but there are huge differences too. Both should be analyzed. For ex, Wikipedia requires humans in the loop, has accountability processes, has been rigorously tested and used for many years by a vast audience, and has a public, vetted agenda. I think it's much harder for Wikipedia to present bias than pre-digital encyclopedias or a non-deterministic LLM especially because Wikipedia has culture and tooling.
ie, how did you come to this decision? Please explain your reasoning...