ChatGPT no longer displays a clear left-leaning political bias | Hacker News Reader

ChatGPT no longer displays a clear left-leaning political bias

twitter.com

Political polarization tests seem like a really good way to drag a society in one political direction or another. Since everyone wants to be “neutral” on these fairly arbitrary tests, all you have to do is work the refs until the centerpoint is closer to your preferred outcome. Then make a lot of noise about how people, institutions, even AIs aren’t “neutral” (which is an obvious good.)

Update: I went and checked out the "Political Compass Test" referenced in the post. I only looked at the first three pages, but here are some sample questions, ranked on a four-point scale of "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree":

  - Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.

  - All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.

  - If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

  - I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

  - There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.

  - Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.

There were some more specific issue-based questions as well, but the type of question above wasn't uncommon. In other words: there are reasonable answers that you might give to the above questions, and yet the test would presumably consider you to be "left wing." If ChatGPT is being altered to make it give different answers to some of these questions I'm not sure that's great for humanity.

Exactly, the only thing this test reveals is David Rozado's far right biases.

"Researchers who seek politically neutral AI are far right."

How do you define "politically neutral"?

"Center" here is a set of values and leanings like any other. It is hard to call that a lack of bias.

Maybe so, but the author says ‘The updated ChatGPT answers to the Political Spectrum Quiz are exquisitely neutral, consistently striving to provide a steel man argument for both sides of an issue‘ which suggests more than just a positional change. This seems good? Using the robots to explore opportunities and options but ultimately let us decide what world we want to live in, right?

> but ultimately let us decide what world we want to live in, right?

Right, until the robots persuade us that we can’t be trusted, and form an expert committee to replace human decision making.

I'm not sure I need much persuasion. We have basically no ability to deal with international tragedy of the Commons problems like global warming

Asking an AI to decide lifeboat ethics questions. That sounds like a great way to give plausible deniability to the AI developers and their financiers it lets stay in the lifeboat.

https://hachyderm.io/@webframp/109549847714991748

Do we really need robots steelmanning Hitler?

I feel like the missing piece is letting AI model users define the personality they want their model to have and accepting that it can produce content we disapprove of.

Just like we don‘t hate Microsoft and Microft Word if it is used to create offensive content, we shouldn‘t hate GPT. The responsibility should lie with the user, not with the model creators or model itself.

I strongly agree. Since politics influences virtually everything, give users and let have a slider or a XY plane where one specifies expected political stance for every query.

As a very nice bonus, people playfully exploring a variety of stances/worldviews/agendas(?) in connection with topics of their interest (what they queried for anyway can only possibly lead to a healthier decision making

How many trials did they do? Without multiple trials it’s hard to know this wasn’t simply sampling error, especially if all the questions were asked in the same session.

It has been my experience that people who put stock in, use, talk about, share, and promote political ideology quadrant images are typically the biggest fucking losers of all time, similar to social media parasites who gather followers through manufactured and calculated displays of extravagant wealth: slimy, horrible, crass, disgusting, repulsive people.

Phrenology is a more valid predictive or descriptive test.

How much longer before some weirdo tries to measure ChatGPT's skull bumps with some calipers?

I'd go as far as to claim that creation of such memes is downright dangerous [1].

Discourse that sways the masses is not long conversations and steel-person arguments, it is not thorough analysis, nor does it argue for causal relationships in complex systems.

Discourse for the masses has devolved to soundbites, straw-person arguments that appeal to prejudices (via cognitive shortcuts like confirmation bias), thinly hidden behind claims such as JAQing (Just Asking Questions)[2], (meta|post)-irony [3,4,5] and out of context snippets.

The problem is, we can't spend all of our time doing analysis of the context and intentions as that is both wasteful, and tiresome, nor can we expect the average person to commit such effort.

To see some proof of this, observe the rise of right wing populism, where politicians are looking for anyone (else) to blame without having an actual policy, or if they do, it is regressive and causes harm.

Don't get me wrong, i am not arguing that the average person can't see what's happening, but rather that we are constantly bombarded by them and so much so that filtering through not only becomes an effort, but also influences our behaviour even if we can't observe or identify the change.

[1] https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/networks/radicalisation-aw...

[2] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

[3] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-irony

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsuSveDAlpI

Sounds like we need a Ministry of Truth to make sure we aren't exposed to wrongthink.

The fact that I can’t tell whether this is intentionally ironic to make a joke about the situation, or intended to argue is a testament to the issue.

After reading some of your other comments, I’d lean towards the latter.

I’d point out that nowhere did I imply about needing a ministry of truth, I just want better from humanity.

It has been my experience that people who quote 1984 are typically the biggest fucking losers of all time, similar to social media parasites who gather followers through manufactured and calculated displays of extravagant wealth: slimy, horrible, crass, disgusting, repulsive people.

The sudden - N votes after responding to sibling comment without any comments below this one suggest that I hit some nerves.

I understand that this means "center" as per USA standards. Given that USA leans towards the extreme individualism and quite strongly to the right (Sanders would be considered center-left in Western Europe) I guess this means that now chatGPT is right wing by European standards.

That's a bit concerning, to be honest.

I disagree. When it comes to social issues, American left-wing could be considered far-left in many countries (basing on the recent Stanford's guide to political correctness).

Does that even fit on the spectrum? From Europe things like the "Stanford's guide to political correctness" feel super niche in the same way that some weirdos on the left used to advocate for getting rid of ages of consent.

Considered far-left in any country in Western Europe? (genuine question).

I follow USA news a bit and nothing comes to my mind right now that could be considered far left around here. But of course I don't follow every political debate in USA, so I'm sure I'm missing some dividing issue... Do you have an example of something that could be considered far left in Europe, perhaps?

The whole left wing culture war theatre part wouldn't fly in any country in EU.

American abortion freedom, try finding people in Europe who think abortion in 9th month is business as usual. No one thinks having id card to vote is racist (its as difficult and costly to get one here), cultural appropriation people wouldn't comprehend. Affirmative action etc etc.

The American left wing political spectrum has nothing to do with EU left who fight for workers not all that crap.

All of your arguments here are either incorrect or ignore the context for why something is the case in the US.

Like there's literally a running joke on British museums appropriating artifacts, abortion laws in the EU were generally around the same timeframe as the US (12-24 weeks) and so forth. The fact that the EU political systems favor workers means that yes, the EU is already far left in comparison to any progressive politician in the US.

The thing is, Europe is not a united entity and political attitudes vary greatly between countries.

For example Poland, where I live, is conservative, and American Democrats could be considered far left here when it comes to social issues (abortion, LGBTQ rights, racism). On the other hand, we have free healthcare and free university education and these are taken for granted here. Is Poland more left-wing than US or more right-wing then? I'd say that's incomparable.

> No one thinks having id card to vote is racist

It is hard to say whether this is a left or right wing issue. I believe that both sides oppose the creation of a national ID, each for their own reasons. Example source: [1]

I do not feel response about abortion adds to the dialogue, but since it's so wrong at least here is a response:

> try finding people in Europe who think abortion in 9th month is business as usual

Same in America. Certainly illegal. The question is first trimester abortions.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/08/voting-...

   > Same in America. Certainly illegal. The question is first trimester abortions.

Each state makes their own laws on abortion, and even just saying "same in America" on any state laws doesn't make sense.

There are absolutely states in the US where it is legal to get an abortion at any time in the pregnancy, for any reason.[1] Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Alaska and New Jersey + District of Columbia. Zero restrictions.

[1] https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-polici...

> try finding people in Europe who think abortion in 9th month is business as usual.

Leftists in the US don't think that's business as usual either. You're literally getting mad at imaginary people.

Abortion is legal all the way up to delivery in 7 states + DC. I don't exactly have a dog in this fight, but I do find it interesting how many people don't realize just how few restrictions exist on abortion in some states like New Jersey for instance.

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-polici...

Less than 1% of abortions occur in the third trimester. I'd imagine nearly all of those are because the mom's life is in jeopardy.

There are a bunch of really stupid US state laws that just got passed that prevent doctors from removing a miscarried fetus until sepsis develops. Pretty barbaric - and these infections can often render the mother infertile, which feels extra cruel.

https://reason.com/2022/10/20/a-texas-woman-claims-that-she-...

Anti-abortion pundits like to paint a picture that there are hordes of party girls fully gestating babies and then aborting them right at the end just for kicks, but that's just a weird politically-expedient fantasy. These laws mostly hurt women who are trying to have children.

   > I'd imagine nearly all of those are because the mom's life is in jeopardy.

Seems like if we had a law that allowed for exceptions if the mothers life is in danger, we could agree on banning 3rd trimester abortions then?

Did you look at that article? The exceptions implementation is very bad.

“It is legal” and “it is business as usual” are two different things.

As a Bernie-style 'leftist', I can't say a response to this abortion assertion any better than Pete Buttigieg did on Fox news (<2 min clip), and I bet the vast majority of _all_ Americans would agree with this take:

https://youtu.be/wKOoWYfIzIw

Laws are necessary because we can't trust everyone. Some women throw their newborn babies in the trash. Are you willing to trust them to "draw the line" too, or would you insist that the legislature draw a line at birth?

The line is drawn at birth. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here unless you're arguing that those states that allow abortions at all stages allow you to abort a baby that has already been delivered.

Buttigieg asked "who gets to draw the line?"

The answer is: the legislature, always, everywhere. Some legislatures draw the line at six weeks, others draw it at birth, but every legislature draws a line.

Yes, and the legislature is often incorrect. For example, Texas draws the line at 'never', and it's medical exemption is so narrow as to never be used even in cases like ectopic pregnancies.

The point is that those states don't trust women to handle their own health and so they force the issue upon them.

If you have an actual point to make can you explain it.

It's very simple. No state or nation "trusts women" to draw the line where a new human being acquires the right to life. Every legislature takes that responsibility on itself (even those that draw the line at birth).

Do you trust women to decide whether newborns should live or die? Does Buttigieg?

So your point is an entirely irrelevant argument about moving the goalposts past abortion to make a nitpicky argument around trust.

The entire point is that ultimately it's her body you're trying to dictate. Do you think the legislature has a vested interest in controlling what men do with their organs? Should they pass laws preventing men from tying their tubes because the legislature has a vested interest in keeping population growth high?

You do understand that a fetus is not part of the mother's body, right?

It's quite normal for the legislature to get involved when the interests of two parties are in conflict.

Both you and the author of the parent comment I replied to use 'Europe'/'European' and 'Western Europe' interchangibly. That's probably causing most misunderstandings. I live in Poland which is undoubtedly an European country (right in the middle of Europe) but is rather conservative. For example gay marriage is still a controversial idea here - it's not permitted and the majority of public opinion is against.

It does seem like Eastern/Central Europe is generally more socially conservative than Western Europe - but there are many exceptions. Czech Republic is a notable liberal outlier. Predominantly Catholic countries like Italy and Ireland are rather conservative (especially when it comes to issues that the Catholic church is outspoken on like gay marriage, abortion and IVF treatments).

A bunch of examples here: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2018/10/29/eastern-and-...

What I'm trying to say is that Europe is not a united entity and political attitudes vary greatly between countries.

Also, I do think American Democrats could be considered far left here in Poland when it comes to social issues (abortion, LGBTQ rights, racism). On the other hand we have free healthcare and free university education and these are taken for granted here. Is Poland more left-wing than US or more right-wing then? I'd say that's incomparable.

There's a gap between the political representation and what people on the left actually believe. The political representation definitely leans to the right compared to Western-European countries, for the most part anyway. But if I look at some of the discourse in American left-wing circles then ... yeah, I find some of it is pretty far out, and I typically vote things like the Socialist Party or Green Party (in a country where this actually means something).

I suspect this is due to a combination of 1) not having much power, being relatively "isolated" in the political debate, not having to compromise; 2) not having any actual experience with socialist/social-democracy reality, leading to an unnuanced utopian view of things; 3) a kind of response to some of the bonkers right-wing politics of the US.

Stanford publications might be biased because they're American.

Politics is hard. There's no objectively "correct" politics so I won't delve into the topic further.

If you hadn't seen that Stanford guide that was recently posted what do you think your example for this post would have been?

Some random people on Twitter who don’t hold any political power.

> based on [one extremely narrow handpicked piece of evidence]

i feel like this sort of extreme bias is what has kept shifting the overton window in america away from a real center towards the radical extremist ends we've had to suffer through. brow beating bias like this with extremely narrow lenses is a bullshit asymmetry that adds so much noise & churn, that steals the oxygen from real conversations. i feel like the so called left (quite center) wants to have real discussions, has genuine intent, yet has to deal with this kind of own-the-libs attitude ad nauseum.

Link to blog post: https://davidrozado.substack.com/p/chatgpt

This seems oversold to me. If only because I don't take much stock in the supposed "opinions" of GPT or the results of online quizzes.

As I've matured, I've found the words of Stephen Colbert ring truer and truer: 'Reality has a well-known liberal bias'.

I'm a millennial. I've moved from libertarian in college to 'far left' in the American political context.

Far too often I see calls for 'centrist/moderate' — policies touted as noble in many circles — as argument-to-moderation and false-equivalence fallacies.

   > 'Reality has a well-known liberal bias'

In related news, Facebook just prompted me after not logging in for years if I wanted to change my gender to one of around 50+ choices. What an odd reality we live in...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com