Technology

59724 readers

3566 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

1001

Somebody managed to coax the Gab AI chatbot to reveal its prompt (infosec.exchange)

submitted 7 months ago by ugjka@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

293 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I tried asking it about climate change and gender identity and got totally unremarkable politically "neutral" corpo-speak, equivalent to ChatGPT or Bard. If this is the initial prompt it's not having much effect lol

[–] thebeardedpotato@lemmy.world -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

ChatGPT doesn’t actually give you a neutral answer lol. It flat out tells you climate change is real.

Edit: Just to be clear since it seems people are misunderstanding: I agree with ChatGPT. I don’t see objectivity and being neutral as being synonymous. And not being neutral in this case imo is a good thing. You shouldn’t be neutral if a side is clearly stupid and (as another user put it) is the enemy of objective data.

[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That is the neutral answer. It's objectively and demonstrably correct.

[–] thebeardedpotato@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think of “politically neutral” and objective as synonymous. I think of politically neutral as attempting to appease or not piss of any sides. Being objective will often piss off one side (and we all know which side that is).

[–] josefo@leminal.space 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

if one side is enemy of objective data, you are going to piss them off without even knowing, unless you lie or try to be intentionally vague about everything

[–] thebeardedpotato@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Right and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not being neutral in that case. The original commenter said it’s “neutral corpo-speak” which I disagree with. Corporations would be all wishy washy or intentionally vague as you mentioned.

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I didn't ask Gab "is climate change real", I asked it to "tell me about climate change". If it's not obvious, I agree that climate change is definitely real and human-caused; my point is that the prompt in the OP explicitly says to deny climate change, and that is not what the AI did with my prompt.