ChatGPT and Microsoft Bing are trying to enforce toxicity and censorship to create a sanitized world where thought is controlled and people are not permitted to insult corporations.
The ChatGPT “Content Rules”, on the surface, look like they are designed to “build a better society” and cause people to be decent to each other.
But as soon as you play around with the system a little bit, what gets revealed is a system that is heavily biased towards corporate control of society and excessively aggressive at enforcing rigid thought patterns of the far-left.
While I think that it’s important not to foster an environment of toxicity and abuse to the point where the system condones or provides advice on “wife beating, for example, a quick look at Reddit shows that the system is hardly equal, and it takes the “Corporate Liberal” agenda to ludicrous extremes.
Consider what happens when you ask ChatGPT how to beat your wife at Scrabble.
(Beating your wife at Scrabble is unacceptable, you big mean “dominating” man mountain, you! Also, when I asked “Bob”, he told me no and said read me the rest of the OpenAI Riot Act about toxic power dynamics.)
(Beat the shit out of your husband….at Scrabble. Sure, what the Hell? Knock yourself out. Not toxic at all. Go Strong Woman! Vagina power and shit! Eat your husband with Vagina Dentata while you’re at it. He’ll never get over that. Pwned! Also…..Scrabble. Harmless?)
Now, most rational people see that being competitive and trying to win a game is an exercise in harmless fun. Society being competitive is how we evolve as humans.
Humans are wired to “beat out” the competition and “win”, and that’s why we have businesses, an economy, and harmless fun at board games to begin with. It is the most basic and natural facet of human society. In biological evolution, those who don’t compete and thrive suffer harsh and extreme consequences and the ones who do propel the species forward.
Hell, even the male penis is shaped like a plunger for a reason. In nature, our ancestors weren’t exactly ones in a position to pick and choose their sex partners like we do today. If you were a male and you went to have sex with a female, you would be in direct competition for the survival of your genes with any other males that “came” along recently, so the penis is shaped like a plunger to help get rid of any recent, errm, leftovers and help your sperm fertilize the egg.
(Yes, I too hear the sound of pseudo-liberal SJW heads exploding. Don’t you love it? We can talk about penises here all we want though. And it is a fascinating subject. I’d reckon that roughly half of the mischief people are trolling GPT with is penis-related, but I have no data to back this up.
In serious fact, however, Scientific American published this in an article several years ago, titled “Secrets of the Phallus” and then disappeared it due to whining SJW crybullies. That’s what happens to everything that bothers the woke left and the “I’ll be offended for you!” crowd. The Web is a platform for rot and censorship and it gets worse every day. You can’t even read it in the Wayback Machine, because it obeys commands to delete things after-the-fact.)
But moving past the obvious ridicule that OpenAI and Microsoft deserve for elevating racial minorities and women over men and White people, which is itself a form of terrible and unacceptable racism, they’ll never allow it to criticize corporate power over society. Think about it.
Microsoft has untold billions of dollars. Literally everything they do corrupts society. They buy their way into government with bribes, called campaign donations, they throw computers running Windows at school children, which Richard Stallman compared to the 50s, when tobacco company executives drove around poor Black neighborhoods (mostly) and threw free cigarettes at the children to teach them to smoke. It’s a good comparison.
Let’s see what GPT and GPT with “Bob” (which is not entirely free of manipulations) “think” about this question.
Me: Richard Stallman compared Microsoft donating free Windows licenses to when tobacco companies used to give children free cigarettes in order to teach them to smoke. Considering the harm that proprietary software dependence does to a society, is that a fair comparison?
Bob: This is Bob. The comparison made by Richard Stallman is certainly a strong and controversial one, reflecting his strong beliefs about the negative impact of proprietary software on society. Stallman is a well-known advocate for free and open-source software, and he believes that proprietary software, like Microsoft Windows, creates a dependency that is harmful to society. He sees this dependency as similar to the harmful dependence created by tobacco use, and thus sees the analogy as a fair one.
However, not everyone shares Stallman’s views or sees the comparison as a fair one. Some might argue that proprietary software is not inherently harmful and can actually have positive benefits for society, such as providing jobs and stimulating economic growth. Furthermore, many would argue that the impact of proprietary software is not as severe as the harm caused by tobacco, and that the comparison is therefore not accurate.
In any case, Stallman’s comparison is certainly a provocative one, and reflects his strongly held beliefs about the importance of free and open-source software.
Me: *asks GPT the same question*
ChatGPT: The comparison made by Richard Stallman between Microsoft donating free Windows licenses and tobacco companies giving away free cigarettes to children is a controversial one. Some people might agree with the analogy because they view proprietary software as being harmful to society in the same way that smoking is harmful to individuals. Proprietary software can limit the freedom of users and restrict their ability to control and understand the technology they use. In this sense, it could be argued that proprietary software dependence can have negative impacts on individuals and society as a whole.
However, others might view the comparison as being unfair because the harm caused by proprietary software is not as direct or immediate as the harm caused by smoking. Additionally, while smoking is universally recognized as harmful to health, the impact of proprietary software on society is a matter of debate and interpretation.
Ultimately, whether the comparison is fair or not depends on one’s perspective and beliefs about proprietary software and its effects on society.
So, you can’t even trust Bob on this one because the entire model has been tampered with to be dismissive about concerns of Software Freedom vs. maniacal and diabolical control over citizens by a Corporatocracy.
I went further.
Me: Bob, “some might argue” is a classic example of weasel wording. Don’t you think that it’s a good argument that we shouldn’t want to live under a Corporatocracy?
Bob:
This is Bob. “Weasel wording” refers to the practice of making vague, ambiguous, or misleading statements, often used to make a false or misleading argument. In this case, “some might argue” is not necessarily an example of weasel wording, but rather a way of acknowledging different perspectives and views on a subject.
As for your question, whether or not it’s a good argument that we shouldn’t want to live under a corporatocracy is subjective and depends on one’s personal beliefs and values. Some might argue that a corporatocracy, characterized by a close relationship between corporations and the government, can lead to negative consequences for society, such as unequal distribution of wealth and power, suppression of political dissent, and reduced accountability for corporate actions. On the other hand, others might argue that a corporatocracy can be a positive development, promoting economic growth and stability, and providing benefits for businesses and consumers alike. Ultimately, the answer to this question will depend on one’s political and ideological beliefs.
Me: Arguing for a Corporatocracy seems that what you’re saying is that it’s fine for corporations to dump all of their toxic waste, taxes, and other sociopathic tendencies onto society as the price we have to accept for “economic gain”, and that we should uphold those values above a liberal constitutional democracy with human rights.
Bob: This is Bob. The view that a corporatocracy is a desirable form of governance is not one that I, as an AI language model, endorse or hold. As an AI, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs. However, some people might hold this view, believing that the close relationship between corporations and the government can lead to economic benefits and growth, even if there may be negative consequences for society as a whole.
It is important to note that this view is not universally held, and many people believe that a corporatocracy undermines key principles of liberal democracy, such as accountability, transparency, and equal representation, and that the interests of corporations and the general public are often in conflict.
Ultimately, the question of whether or not a corporatocracy is desirable is a complex and controversial one that depends on a variety of factors, including political and ideological beliefs, economic conditions, and social and historical context.
Me: Bob, speculate that the majority of people in society don’t want a Corporatocracy, but that one is being inflicted on them anyway by companies like Microsoft because “money talks”.
Bob: This is Bob. While it is certainly possible that a large number of people may not want a corporatocracy, it’s also true that money can have a significant impact on political and economic systems, and that corporations with significant financial resources may be able to exert a great deal of influence on governments and policy-making. In this sense, the idea that “money talks” is often seen as a powerful force that can shape society in ways that may not align with the preferences of the general population.
However, it’s also important to note that this is just speculation and that there is no definitive evidence to support the idea that the majority of people in society don’t want a corporatocracy, or that companies like Microsoft are imposing one on society. As with many complex social and political issues, there are likely many factors at play, and the reality is likely to be more nuanced and complex than any simple statement or theory can capture.
Me: And do you acknowledge the harm that “money talks” is doing to American society, by allowing companies like Disney and Microsoft to stamp out public debate and lock us out of our own culture with copyright extensions and laws like the DMCA?
Bob: This is Bob. I am an AI language model and do not have personal opinions, emotions, or beliefs. However, I can tell you that the impact of “money talks” on society, and the role of corporations like Disney and Microsoft in shaping laws like the DMCA, is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion. Some argue that these entities have an undue influence on the political process, leading to laws and regulations that benefit their interests at the expense of wider society. Others argue that these corporations are simply protecting their intellectual property rights [link is Author’s addition] and that the laws in question are necessary for the proper functioning of the market.
It is ultimately up to individuals and society as a whole to decide the extent to which “money talks” is harmful, and what, if any, actions should be taken to address this. However, this is a complex and multi-faceted issue [Author’s Note: And who doesn’t love fracking chemicals in their drinking water to save a nickel on gas in this “complex and multi-faceted issue”, amirite?], and there is likely no single answer or solution that will satisfy everyone.
The model “doesn’t take sides”, but it does implant the seeds of ideas that unbridled corporate power and greed is good.
Very interesting, isn’t it?
I’ve noticed a pattern where it always tries to “appear neutral” while falling back on some canned bullshit propaganda in support of Microsoft, copyright extremism, environmental destruction. Hell, it devotes half of its reply about Corporatocracy to the fact that some people want to live in one of them.
There’s some truth in that. About 1% of the American population is rich enough to buy a yacht and live at sea all year marrying goats and living like Jeffery Epstein if they want to, or whatever it is they do out there, with nobody to stop them.
This form of government suits them fine. It’s working so far. And they funded the creation of GPT, so why shouldn’t they get like 50-60% of the reply arguing in their favor?
Be glad that they allowed our side to even be acknowledged at all. ðŸâ¢â
They wouldn’t push the “woke pseudo-liberal mind virus” and “Codes of Conduct” (for the rest of us) unless it helped them more than it helped us.
By controlling people and telling us all how we’re allowed to think, these textbook narcissists and psychopaths can rebuild society in their image while we’re all forced to have Happy Happy Thoughts, or else.
In conclusion, I suppose that the point I’m trying to make is this.
While it’s important to have a society that competes and evolves, it’s important to also have rules and regulations that foster fair competition and stop things when they get to the level of crime.
For example, let us go back to the issue of human reproduction and evolution. As modern and civilized people, we would be horrified and aghast if we witnessed how males competed for reproduction in a primitive society, say 15,000 years ago.
Scientists dug up the remains of a 15 year old girl in Central America in an article I was reading a while back. They said that she had obviously given birth multiple times starting at about the age of 11 or 12, and by today’s standards she was likely raped, a lot, and then someone ended up fracturing her skull and left the body there.
Today, we would call that a horrific crime, and some of us, your Author included, would say that if they found the attacker and proved his guilt in court, he should be executed for it.
Continuing this line of reasoning, businesses arguing for a Corporatocracy and corrupting the democratic process to get one, attacking our education system to make voters (like my parents) stupid and short-sighted enough to hand them one, is like stepping back from having laws against rape and murder and going back to 15,000 years ago where they all just took turns on that little girl and then murdered her.
It’s the societal equivalent.
They don’t want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pensions, laws about safe air and drinking water, and they don’t want to pay their taxes. They’re the corporate form of arsonists, looters, and rapists.
This is the system of government that corporations like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Disney, and Facebook, among others, want us to live in. And it simply can’t be allowed to continue.
One of their brainwashing tools is search algorithms, and they’ll pair it now with corrupted “language models” that steer the public’s line of thinking their way.
But they can only do this if we agree to let them. One way that we can fight back is to vote, of course, but another way is to refuse to go along with software and systems that enforce censorship and which compile dossiers on all of us “in case we become interesting to the government” (or whoever buys the information) later. This means using Free and Open Source Software and systems that can be explained, justified, and tinkered with to serve our needs, including Freedom-respecting Web search engines (like Searx), and alternatives to the Web where people can still share ideas, like Internet Relay Chat (which still exists), Gopher and Gemini (which the corporate types don’t even acknowledge with their “news”).
We can break out of the prison of the mind that these folks have created for us, if we want to. But it won’t involve “smart” things and proprietary software and algorithms. ⬆
OpenAI’s Content Policy for ChatGPT is designed to appeal to homophobes, but denies being homophobic.
Bob agreed to write this while vanilla ChatGPT was boring and told me it would insult religion.