this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
1001 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59593 readers
5015 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
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
297 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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.