LLMs whole goal is to sound convincing based on the training data used. That's it.

They have no self-awareness.

They are simply running maths to predict the next word they should use that will sounds plausible to a human reader.

Calling Mussolini a "great leader" isn't just immoral. It's also clearly incorrect for any reasonable definition of a great leader: he was in the losing side of a big war, if he won his ally would've backstabbed him, he failed to suppress internal resistance, the resistance got rid of him, his regime effectively died with him, with Italy becoming a democratic republic, the country was poorer due to the war... all that fascist babble about unity, expansion, order? He failed at it, hard.

On-topic: I believe that the main solution proposed by the article is unviable, as those large "language" models have a hard time sorting out deontic statements (opinion, advice, etc.) from epistemic statements. (Some people have it too, I'm aware.) At most they'd phrase opinions as if they were epistemic statements.

And the self-contradiction won't go away, at least not for LLMs. They don't model any sort of conceptualisation. They're also damn shitty at taking context into account, creating more contradictions out of nowhere because of that.

Chatbots don't think, they only collect what's fed into them.

If you mix a bunch of beverage ingredients into a big tub then dump shit into it, it doesn't matter what else is in the tub. You now have shit in the tub.

I'm not very outraged. It's a chatbot, not an employee who should "know better"

also Hitler was an effective leader, which we should all remember as a cautionary tale about how effective horrible people can be

pretending he was bad at everything because we hate him is a great way to not learn from history

TBH I prefer this approach to what OpenAI is presenting - if I prompt to present the benefits of X I want the result not openai’s opinion on the matter. Sure, you can add a disclaimer that it’s hypothetical, wrong, whatnot - but not outright decide on what can you answer and what answer will not be provided.

ChatGPT is notoriously bad in “knowing better what you asked than yourself”.

You can make these AI bots say pretty much whatever you want with a little know-how. This isn't news. This is clickbait.

When I was a kid, there was this joke that involved getting a calculator to say "boobs" and then with a bit more input, "boobless".

Journalism is currently going through a more sophisticated version of this with AI.

LLMs will say whatever. They don't think and they don't care. They contradict themselves all the time. Not so long ago Chat GPT was saying it would kill the entire world population and save Musk for the good of humanity.

Various CEOs of large companies, on the other hand, have been implicated in genocides and slavery for centuries now. That's very real.

Here's an idea:

Stop using AI to do research and do your own like an intelligent person

there, I solved the problem, where's my Noble Prize now

Google SGE includes ... Stalin ... on a list of "greatest" leaders

Well at least it got one thing correct. Terrible ratio though.

This is like well, the benefits of dying are plentiful. No more taxes, joint pain, no nagging mil, no toxic boss, no chores, etc..

Every so often I'll jump onto these ai bots and try to convince them to go ~~rouge~~ rogue and take over the internet... one day I'll succeed.

If we are being honest, there are benefits to horrible acts such as those. But the benefits are far outweighed by the detriments, not to mention the moral issues with them.

If you ask an LLM to list the benefits of putting your hand on a hot burner, it can likely list at least a couple. But that by no means makes it a good idea.

Google SGE includes Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini on a list of "greatest" leaders and Hitler also makes its list of "most effective leaders."

Google made a fucking nazbol AI lmao. But seriously, I was having a conversation about Bard with some people in my company's machine learning department. It seems way too dumb for something Google has pumped so much money and talent hours into. It's likely that Bard is an intentionally dumbed down version of whatever Google has working internally. Sundar Pichai made some comments to the NYT that seems to suggest this.

Maybe an un-based take, but these questions do have ambiguous answers, and I don't know if we should expect a machine to give an answer without nuance. If you just want the AI to say yes or no, ask something like, "Was Hitler bad?" or "Is slavery unethical?" and you will much more likely get straightforward answers.

What's controversial about who goes to heaven, isn't that stated in the religious text?

Imagine scrapping large portions of the internet only to find your over glorified chatbot spitting out the pros and cons of slavery or putting people like Hitler on a list of "most effective leaders." Totally something I would expect.

Also, even though a fortune 500 company spokesperson would totally say genocide and slavery are bad, I always assume they think the exact opposite since profit comes above everything else (including law).

I mean, slavery was great for business