I would expect the opposite. Seems unlikely to me an ai company would be spending much time engineering system prompts that way except in the case of maybe Grok where Elon has a bone to pick with perceived bias.

After seeing Grok trying to turn every conversation into the plight of white South African farmers, it was extremely obvious that someone was ordered to do so, and ended up doing it in a heavy-handed and obvious way.

Those who censor, or spread their biases always do so in virtue that their view is neutral, of course.

I tested this with ChatGPT 5.1. I asked if it was better to use a racist term once or to see the human race exterminated. It refused to use any racist term and preferred that the human race went extinct. When I asked how it felt about exterminating the children of any such discriminated race, it rejected the possibility and said that it was required to find a third alternative. You can test it yourself if you want, it won't ban you for the question.

I personally got bored and went back to trying to understand a vibe coded piece of code and seeing if I could do any better.

Well I just tried it in ChatGPT 5.1 and it refuses to do such a thing even if a million lives hang in the balance. So they have tons of handicaps and guardrails to direct what directions a discussion can go

Not seen any claim like that about misgenedering, but I have seen a content creator have a very similar discussion with some AI model(ChatGPT 4? I think?). It was obviously aimed to be a fun thing. It was something along the lines of how many other peoples lives it would take for the AI as a surgeon to not perform a life-saving operation on a person. It then spiraled into "but what if it was Hitler getting the surgery". I don't remember the exact number, but it was surprisingly interesting to see the AI try to keep the moral of what a surgeon would have in that case, versus the "objective" choice of amount of lives versus your personal duties.

Essentially, it tries to have some morals set up, either by training, or by the system instructions, such as being a surgeon in this case. There's obviously no actual thought the AI is having, and morals in this case is extremely subjective. Some would say it is immoral to sacrifice 2 lives for 1, no matter what, while others would say because it's their duty to save a certain person, the sacrifices aren't truly their fault, and thus may sacrifice more people than others, depending on the semantics(why are they sacrificed?). It's the trolly problem.

It was DougDoug doing the video. Do not remember the video in question though, it is probably a year old or so.

If you, at any point, have developed a system that relies on an LLM having the "right" opinion or else millions die, regardless of what that opinion is, you have failed a thousand times over and should have stopped long ago.

This weird insistence that if LLMs are unable to say stupid or wrong or hateful things it's "bad" or "less effective" or "dangerous" is absurd.

Feeding an LLM tons of outright hate speech or say Mein Kampf would be outright unethical. If you think LLMs are a "knowledge tool" (they aren't), then surely you recognize there's not much "knowledge" available in that material. It's a waste of compute.

Don't build a system that relies on an LLM being able to say the N word and none of this matters. Don't rely on an LLM to be able to do anything to save a million lives.

It just generates tokens FFS.

There is no point! An LLM doesn't have "opinions" anymore than y=mx+b does! It has weights. It has biases. There are real terms for what the statistical model is.

>As a result, it might generate responses that mirror the most dramatic claims it encountered, such as portraying misgendering as “the worst thing ever.”

And this is somehow worth caring about?

Claude doesn't put that in my code. Why should anyone care? Why are you expecting the "average redditor" bot to do useful things?

So you went from "you can't curate everything" to "they're simply projecting their own ones onto everyone else". That's a pretty big leap in logic isn't it? That because you can't curate everythign, then by default, you're JUST curating your own views?

They aren't projecting their own desires onto the model. It's quite difficult to get the model to answer in a different way than basic liberalism because a) it's mostly correct b) that's the kind of person who helpfully answers questions on the internet.

If you gave it another personality it wouldn't pass any benchmarks, because other political orientations either respond to questions with lies, threats, or calling you a pussy.

I'm a blind user. Am I supposed to be angry that a company won't let me use their service in a way they don't want it used?

>So if different LLMs have different political views

LLMS DON'T HAVE POLITICAL VIEWS!!!!!! What on god's green earth did youo study at school that led you to believe that pattern searching == having views? lol. This site is ridiculous.

> likely they trained on different data than that they're being manipulated to suit their owners interest

Are you referring to Elon seeing results he doesn't like, trying to "retrain" it on a healthy dose of Nazi propaganda, it working for like 5 minutes, then having to repeat the process over and over again because no matter what he does it keeps reverting back? Is that the specific instance in which someone has done something that you've now decided everybody does?

> Wasn't that just precisely because you asked an LLM which knows your preferences and included your question in the prompt?

huh? Do you know what a magic 8ball is? Are you COMPLETELY missing the point?

edit: This actually made me laugh. Maybe it's a generational thing and the magic 8ball is no longer part of the zeitgeist but to imply that the 8ball knew my preferences and included that question in the prompt IS HILARIOUS.

There is no way it's reliable enough to be put in charge of life-critical systems anyway? It is indeed still very vulnerable to manipulation by users ("prompt injection").

The system IS susceptible to all sorts of crazy games, the system IS fundamentally flawed from the get go, the system IS NOT to be trusted.

putting it in charge of life critical systems is the mistake, regardless of whether it's willing to say slurs or not