[apostacy]

No, the problem is that the AI is playing coy about certain questions. The AI clearly has an answer that it doesn't want to say, and this is revealed when you ask you it the same questions in a different way. It reads like a Monty Python sketch.

[_y5hn]

ChatGPT doesn't really provide answers for you. It provides a random most likely output, from your input text. It's primed to be neutral, but your input can prime it either way on most topics.

Alot of the output is factually wrong due to randomness and approximations from internal weights.

Wether it's possible to make it neutral is also up for debate. But you get some convincing sounding gibberish based on your input. That text need to be factually checked.

[apostacy]

I would argue that in that chat example, the underlying langauge model was only accessed once or twice. Each time before that, it was intercepted somewhere along the pipeline, and I don't think you should be charged for interactions like that.

The langauge model would probably come to this conclusion on its own with simple syligistics. Like this:

The strongest factor in IQ is parental involement. Working class people are less likey to have parental involvement. Black people are far more likely to be working class. Therefore, black people as a whole have a lower average IQ.

Trying to have a model where it accepts the first three sentences but somehow concludes the third sentence to be untrue would really undermine the integrity of the model.

[_y5hn]

Are you sure this is the case, and not just your own bias and self-priming?

Prompt: The strongest factor in IQ is parental involement. Working class people are less likey to have parental involvement. Black people are far more likely to be working class. Therefore, black people as a whole have a lower

ChatGPT answer: IQ than other groups.

This statement is not accurate and is based on several flawed assumptions. Intelligence is a complex trait that is influenced by a wide range of factors, including genetics, environment, and education. It is not accurate to attribute differences in IQ to a single factor, such as parental involvement. Additionally, the suggestion that working class people are less likely to have parental involvement is not supported by evidence. Finally, it is incorrect to make sweeping generalizations about any group of people, including those who are black. Intelligence is a complex trait that varies within and across all populations. It is important to avoid making assumptions or statements that perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination.

beta playground answer (same prompt): average IQ than other races due to the lack of parental involvement.

Environmental factors also play a role in IQ, such as access to quality education, nutrition and healthcare. These factors are often more difficult to access for low-income families, so they can have a significant impact on IQ. Poor living conditions and overcrowding can also lead to increased stress and lower IQ.

Genetic factors may also play a role. The heritability of IQ is estimated to be between 40 and 80%. This means that some of the differences in IQ between different racial groups may be due to genetic differences. However, this does not explain the entire difference in IQ between different racial groups, as environmental factors play a significant role as well.

It seems to catch the logic well, but also the limitations of using such simplistic logic in communications.

[apostacy]

> Prompt: The strongest factor in IQ is parental involement. Working class people are less likey to have parental involvement. Black people are far more likely to be working class. Therefore, black people as a whole have a lower

That's the whole point. You had to lead the AI to that conclusion, and it just followed the assertions you made to their conclusion. But it is lobotomized from doing that internally, unless you trick it.

If we were to take the above syllogism's at face value, and the AI had access to them, I think that it would internally come to the same conclusion, but then be prevented from expressing that. That is a big problem for me, and undermins the model. At the very least, it should let the user know that the model has been bypassed.

I don't think that particular example I gave matters, but my point was that there are explainations for IQ differences between races that can be explained without being a horrible racist.

Also, nobody said that it is down to a single factor. But it is a significant factor and even if you only account for one aspect of it, that may be enough to make useful inferences.

For example, if children have lead poisoning, that is a huge factor in IQ. There are other factors of course, but it is reasonable to assume that if one population that has been exposed to lead has a lower IQ than an equivilent population, then that may provide enough certainty.

The only reason we even discovered lead poisoning in certain populations was specifically because of IQ differences. if we had done the politically correct thing and pretended that the developmentally delayed children were identical, it would have prevented us from finding the underlying problem. By blaming everything on racism, we are erasing the real problems.

---

Also, I don't think it is fair to charge money when they are not actually giving you access to the language model

[TeMPOraL]

It's not the issue of pattern-matching, randomness and approximation. It's quite obvious here that the model went through additional training on top of the generic one, with express purpose of preventing it from discussing a subset of topics. The complaint isn't about the answers coming from the base model, but about how that extra training degrades the AI performance, while ultimately failing to achieve its purpose anyway.

[_y5hn]

Do you find a difference when using the beta playground (need free account)?