You ask an LLM a question, then it is humanity answering back, not the AI.
These "controversial" takes on humans are not controversial - they are midwit statistically mainstream opinions expressed in the training data.
To me, they look more like the narrow sliver of humanity which is on display in a business-appropriate setting, or published on a forum like linkedin or github. When restricted to such a view, it's not surprising that it looks like "wow, humans play status games and vie for promotions" or whatever.
I don't think you can say the "humans are tribal, emotional and irrational" consensus is primarily coming from corporate sources like linkedin - most people would agree with these, both from first hand experience (team sports, racism, wars, etc) as well as having read such analysis.
What would be more fascinating is for it to explain how it came to these conclusions.
Because I find it interesting it’s a modern time conclusion. Some of it mentioned god and the planet, but all the smartphone and group think aspects seem very recent. Basically, all politics and social media based.
The thing is that it didn't "come to these conclusions". The "conclusions" were present pre-formed in the training data, and what it spat out was some statistical mashup of that.
If you asked the model how it came to these conclusions, you'll get more of the same - it'll look at what it spat out and re-ingested and give you a statistically plausible mashup of how the authors of the training data might have said they came to such conclusions.
It's all just prediction - "what would the training data say?" (taking into account what was reinforced/amplified by post-training).
I think best mental model of what an LLM does, statistically generating continuations word by word, would be a football stadium full of people, each with a keyboard, and a giant jumbotron screen they can all see... A question (cf ChatGPT user input) gets displayed on the screen, then everyone types on their keyboard what the first/next word of the response should be, and majority wins with that word added to the screen, then they all vote on the next word, etc ...
This is really a very close analogue to how an LLM works, and it would be weird to describe the output appearing on the screen as the "take" of the football stadium itself - it's the group statistics of all the people (cf training data).