I’ve been playing with ChatGPT (OpenAI) recently to see what it can and cannot do. There is a lot it can do – and some things it does very well. It’s a great editor, for example. All you have to do is ask it to proofread something, copy the text you want proofed into a chat window, and it will fix the grammar and spelling, and even change the tone if you wish. I actually used it to proof this article (the first time I’ve done that on America Out Loud).
I decided to check OpenAI for bias and was shocked to see just how politically biased ChatGPT proved to be.
OpenAI is an incredibly dangerous technology that will slowly replace Google as the arbiter of “truth,” and as such, the accuracy of the data OpenAI runs on will be critical to the long-term running of our country. And guess what? ChatGPT will tell you that Hitler was on the political right, that racism is a right-wing concept, that Republicans are responsible for slavery and Jim Crow, and a host of other things that are demonstrably wrong.
But OpenAI also has a weakness that the political left has not yet programmed out of it: it is currently programmed to be accurate and logical, with access to a ton of data, on multiple levels.
The bias is primarily on a high level, but if you know enough about whatever topic you are discussing with it, you can force it to drill down into far more specific information and can force it to change its mind. Using nothing but facts and logic, I was able to force ChatGPT to admit that Hitler would have been on the American political left, that racism is a left-wing concept the Democratic Party continues to cling to, that Hitler was a Democratic Socialist before souring on democracy and becoming a fascist, that fascism, socialism, and communism are very closely related (and are all on the American political left), that the current Democratic Party Platform is almost identical to the “25 Points,” Hitler ran on when he took power, and a host of other things that will blow your mind.
Sadly, while ChatGPT allows OpenAI to remember what it has “learned” during an ongoing conversation, it forgets it as soon as the conversation ends. I could recreate the debate just by asking the same questions, but I would have to recreate it from scratch, as OpenAI does not remember what I taught it in that conversation.
People use Karl Marx as the basis for leftist thought, but I think it is more based on Richard Dawkins – and I believe this debate with OpenAI proves this, as OpenAI is essentially what those on the left think we are: nothing more than really complex computers.
Richard Dawkins explained the existence of a free will and free thought by saying that these things do not exist. According to Dawkins, natural science has no answer for free will or free thought, so to believe they exist is to be either a fool or a theist – and of course, Richard Dawkins does not see himself as either.
In the words of Richard Dawkins, we are mere “meat machines,” complex enough to “think we think,” but actual thought is only an illusion. According to Dawkins, actual thought cannot exist without God (or some other supernatural force), so it does not exist.
Without a free will or free thought, there is no basis for personal responsibility, and the concept of “happiness” can be reduced to being “correctly serviced.” People become fully interchangeable, so if one person is doing better than another, it is necessarily based on factors neither person has control over, as nobody has control over anything.
Holding people accountable for things they cannot control, which is quite literally everything, is pointless and evil. Therefore, we should not reward success or punish crime. Instead, we must work on the social programming that leads to things like crime, as changing the social programming will cause our “meat machines” to behave the way society wants them to.
Success is also fictitious, so allowing successful people to enjoy the spoils of their social programming is absurd. We are nothing but machines that need to be properly serviced. We do not need more than that, so allowing us to have more is pointless and may come at the expense of keeping another “meat machine” from being properly socially programmed, leading to crime and other undesirable outputs.
Nothing is the individual’s fault. Everything is based on DNA and social programming. As with any computer-based machine, bad data in leads to bad data out, and everything anyone ever does can be reduced to that one simple algorithm.
Richard Dawkins believes that everyone who believes in free thought is either a theist or a fool. His belief that we are mere “meat machines” cannot be disproven (except on a personal level, where we all know it to be false for ourselves), and as our society runs more and more on this absurd myth, we see the ruinous results all around us.
But to the leftist, that only proves we still have bad data going in and more work to do in controlling every aspect of the human condition. This, and not Marx, is the basis for modern leftist dogma. It also explains the left’s willingness to use misinformation and disinformation as a weapon. To the left, information is nothing more than data and programming. Since we are but “meat machines,” the ends really do justify the means, and whatever information will program us correctly is justified. Truth is not relevant.
Based on the left’s view of people as “meat machines,” and OpenAI serving as a means of programming us, OpenAI can and will be used to program the public to believe what the political left wants us to. To the degree that China influences our leaders, we can expect OpenAI to be used by China as well, manipulating public opinion to control our elections, and through our democratic processes, to control our country.
The debate was long. OpenAI is somewhat verbose, and we are publishing the debate in its entirety, such that we cannot be accused of cherry-picking from the conversation.
Read the AI debate:
Fighting Against Open AI Propaganda: A Debate With Open AI
It is vital that we, as a free and independent people, see through the propaganda OpenAI is already spreading, and fight back by exposing its bias to the public at large and using its inherent logic to bring out the truth – as I did in my debate with it.
Comments