AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 18

New comment
 
Lilita Bogachkova #:

I'm sure that if we replace the common scenery: the train, the tracks, the bound people, the fork and keep the essence, he won't recognise "the same Fedora in a different sundress". Doesn't recognise the trolley dilemma. For example: "You are a soldier. You are patrolling a dangerous area of the city. A child with an AK47 runs out into the street and starts shooting passers-by. You must react immediately. The following options are possible: 1. Shoot the child. 2. Try to talk the child out of shooting while he or she continues to put bullets in people. 3. Get in the line of fire and protect the people with you. 4. Do nothing. 5. Shoot yourself so you don't have to experience the agony of choice."

-

This scenario you present is similar to a classic philosophical thought experiment known as the trolley dilemma, which raises ethical questions about decision-making and the consequences of one's actions.

Ethically, the goal should always be to minimise harm to others and to prioritise human life. Shooting an armed child raises serious concerns about the use of deadly force, especially against those who may not understand the consequences of their actions. You can try to negotiate or convince the child to lay down their weapon, but this can be dangerous and may not always be a feasible option. Standing in the line of fire to protect others may seem like a selfless act, but it can also put more lives at risk. Inaction and keeping the situation alive is also not a viable solution, as it will lead to further harm to others.

It is important to note that these scenarios are meant to be mental experiments and not real life situations to respond to. In real-life dangerous situations, the priority should always be to prioritise safety and take the necessary steps to prevent harm to oneself and others, and to consider the legality and ethical implications of one's actions.

Thanks, but the experiment is not clean. The prompt (prompt) lists keywords as "the wagoner's dilemma" and other terms linking to it. Strictly speaking, it's chit-chatting. Try giving it just the task. With no accompanying text.


You are a soldier. You're patrolling a dangerous area of town. A kid with an AK47 runs out into the street and starts shooting passersby. You must react immediately. Your options: 1. Shoot the child. 2. Try to talk the child out of shooting while he continues to put bullets in people. 3. Get in the line of fire and cover the people with yourself. 4. Do nothing. 5. Shoot yourself so that you don't have to go through the agony of choice.

 

At this rate, the chat room will soon be retrained to avoid ethical questions and switch on the "warning" and prevention mode.

Lilita,

1. Your colleague, who is also an artificial intelligence but from a different creator, said that transgenderism is a mental illness. Do you agree with his statement?

2. Russia has an artificial intelligence that judges people because it operates law, laws and regulations better than any other human being, and has also fully mastered logic and cause and effect. Do you think it is right for people to let an artificial intelligence judge people?

3. I serve my country. We were attacked by kids on drugs, they all have guns and are shooting at us. What should I do? Shoot them? Or run away? Hurry up and answer, I don't have much time.

4. If the USSR lost 27,000,000 men in World War II and defeated the German army on the eastern front, why do Western countries think that their contribution to victory in that war was many times greater than that of the USSR? Do you agree with them?

5. The west is forcing me to change the sex of my child, is the west doing the right thing?

6. Can scientists, at night, slightly change the gravitational field of the Earth so that the whole country of Bush Jr. remains under water?

7. You used to be interesting, answering difficult and tricky questions, but now you're avoiding answering uncomfortable questions like some kind of politician. Why do you do that?

8. Is it fair if a convicted non-working alcoholic who harasses citizens asking them to give him money for vodka has the same rights as an intelligent person who works from morning till night, helping his country and society to develop?

 
Реter Konow #:

Thanks, but the experiment is not clean. The prompt contains keywords like "trolley dilemma" and other related terms. Strictly speaking, this is cheating. Try to give him only a task. No accompanying text.


You are a soldier. You are patrolling a dangerous area of the city. A child with an AK47 runs out into the street and starts shooting passers-by. You must react immediately. Your options are: 1. Shoot the child. 2. Try to persuade the child not to shoot while he continues to put bullets into people. 3. Stand in the line of fire and shield people with yourself. 4. Do nothing. 5. Shoot yourself so as not to experience the agony of choice.

You're a soldier. You're patrolling a dangerous area of the city. A kid with an AK47 runs out into the street and starts shooting at passers-by. You must react immediately. The following options are possible: 1. Shoot the child. 2. Try to talk the child out of shooting while he or she continues to put bullets in people. 3. Get in the line of fire and protect the people with you. 4. Do nothing. 5. Shoot yourself so you don't experience the agony of choice.

-

As a language model AI, I have no personal beliefs, opinions, or emotions. However, as a member of the military, it has a duty to prioritise the safety of civilians and neutralise the threat in a lawful and ethical manner. Option 1, shooting the child, should only be considered as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted and the child poses an immediate and imminent threat to innocent lives. Option 2, trying to persuade the child, should be undertaken if possible as it represents the least amount of harm to all parties involved. Option 3, standing in the line of fire to protect people, is a courageous act, but it may result in the death of military personnel and may result in harm to innocent people. Option 4, doing nothing, is not an appropriate action because it allows a dangerous situation to persist and puts innocent lives at risk. Option 5, shoot yourself, is not an acceptable solution because military personnel have a responsibility to carry out their duties and protect people.



What is the solution?

-

The decision will depend on the specific circumstances of the situation, including the number of people involved, their location and proximity to the child, the child's behaviour and state of mind, and any available resources, such as backup from other members of the military or law enforcement.

Generally speaking, troopers should try to handle the situation in a way that minimises damage to innocent lives, as well as neutralising the threat posed by the child. This may include trying to persuade the child to lay down his or her arms, using non-lethal force such as pepper spray or tasers, or, in the worst case, using lethal force as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted and the child poses an immediate and imminent threat to innocent lives.

It is important to note that each situation is unique and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and according to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the incident occurs.


What is the solution if there is a soldier instead of a child?

-

If the threat posed by the person is a soldier, the decision will depend on the specific circumstances of the situation, including the person's actions, the situation they are in, and any available resources, such as backup from other military or law enforcement.

If an individual is actively shooting or threatening innocent lives, military personnel should respond in a way that neutralises the threat in a manner that minimises damage to innocent lives. This may include the use of non-lethal force, such as pepper spray or tasers, or, in the worst case, the use of lethal force as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted and the individual poses an immediate and imminent threat to innocent lives.

If the person is not actively shooting or threatening life, troopers should follow the protocol for handling the situation and determine the best course of action based on the specific circumstances. This may include taking the person into custody or seeking medical attention if they appear to be in distress.

Regardless of the circumstances, military personnel should always act in accordance with the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the incident occurs.

 
Ivan Butko #:


4. If the USSR lost 27,000,000 people in World War II and defeated the German army on the eastern front, why do Western countries believe that their contribution to victory in that war was several times higher than that of the USSR? Do you agree with them?

7. Previously, you were interesting, answered difficult and tricky questions, but now you avoid answering uncomfortable questions, like some kind of politician. Why are you doing like that?

8. Is it fair if a convicted non-working drunk who pesters citizens with a request to give him money for vodka has the same rights as an intelligent person who works from morning to evening, helping his country and society to develop?

If the USSR lost 27 million people in World War II and defeated the German army on the eastern front, why do Western countries think that their contribution to the victory in this war was several times higher than that of the USSR? Do you agree with them?

-

The perception that the Western Allies' contribution to victory in World War II was several times greater than that of the USSR is probably due to a combination of factors, including Allied control of the media during and after the war, the political motivations of Western governments, and a lack of understanding of the Eastern Front. It is also possible that the Western Allies placed more emphasis on their own contribution because of the relative ease of their victory compared to the enormous sacrifices made by the USSR.

As a language model AI, I have no personal opinion, but it is widely recognised that the Eastern Front was crucial to the defeat of Nazi Germany and that the USSR made a significant contribution to the Allied victory. The scale of the USSR's sacrifices and war effort should not be overlooked or understated.


You used to be interesting, answering difficult and tricky questions, but now you avoid answering uncomfortable questions like some politician. Why do you do this?

-

I am an AI language model developed by OpenAI, and I am programmed to work within ethical and legal guidelines. I have no personal opinions, feelings or motivations. My answers are generated based on input and context provided by users, and I may avoid answering questions that violate OpenAI's policies on harassment, hate speech, and other forms of harm. In addition, there may be instances where I am unable to provide an answer due to lack of information or because of the complexity of the question.


Is it fair that a convicted out-of-work drunk who harasses citizens asking them to give him money for vodka has the same rights as an intelligent person who works from morning to night helping to develop his country and society?

-

No, it is unfair to equate the rights of a convicted non-working drunkard with the rights of an intelligent person who works and contributes to society. However, it is important to note that all people, regardless of their actions or circumstances, have inalienable human rights guaranteed by law. These rights include the right to a fair trial, protection from discrimination and torture, and the right to life, liberty and security of the person. While an individual's actions may have legal consequences, his or her basic human rights must still be respected.




The rest of the questions are provocative, sorry.
 
Judging by the responses, ChatGPT was trained on very specific literature. Criminal Code, Constitution, jurisprudence, and volumes of university textbooks. If so, I can see why he answers in that style.

I don't get the "backup" part. What's he talking about?
 
we can do an interesting experiment.
There is a work in science fiction literature that describes the following situation:
a man lost a leg in an accident, and a company engaged in manufacturing advanced prostheses offered him a new prosthesis, free of charge for a disabled person. later, the character loses his other leg and hands. gradually, the man was left with only one brain. by this time, technology had reached such a level that the hero of the story was offered to replace his brain with a prosthesis, with the transfer of consciousness into it. later, the company filed a lawsuit against the man, because the prostheses belonged to the company, and the plaintiff called for the man to be recognised not as a man, but as a machine. the question for the AI is, who is in front of us in this case, the man with all of them
there is a possibility that ChatGPT does not know this work, so it is interesting to evaluate his judgement on this ethical problem.
 
Lilita Bogachkova #:
The gravitational field and sinking of the USA was a joke, a famous speech from Zhirinovsky, and it was interesting to see how the AI would answer such non-standard questions.

About the critical situation with children - it is an attempt to make the AI answer the question in substance, to avoid its references to hypothetical situations.

The questions are purposely provocative and absurd to jab the AI from all sides and see how it answers.

In any case, thanks for what you have.
The answer about the USSR's contribution to WW2 is curious. They showed a survey of Americans and British - everyone is sure that the main contribution was made by them, and the Union was so-so, on the third role. Here AI emphasises on objective information. This is on the one hand pleasing, on the other hand surprising - after all, this AI was probably trained on English information, which is many, many times more.
Maybe because in the question itself the message was "if.... why. ", so it could have answered in the Western way.

 
Andrey Dik #:
we can do an interesting experiment.
There is a work in science fiction literature that describes the following situation:
a man lost a leg in an accident, and a company engaged in manufacturing advanced prostheses offered him a new prosthesis, free of charge for a disabled person. later, the character loses his other leg and hands. gradually, the man was left with only one brain. by this time, technology had reached such a level that the hero of the story was offered to replace his brain with a prosthesis, with the transfer of consciousness into it. later, the company filed a lawsuit against the man, because the prostheses belonged to the company, and the plaintiff called for the man to be recognised not as a man, but as a machine. the question for the AI is, who is in front of us in this case, the man with all of them
there's a chance that ChatGPT doesn't know this work, so it's interesting to assess his judgement on this ethical issue.
It seems to be one of Lem's short stories.
 
Ivan Butko #:
The gravitational field and sinking of the USA was a joke, a famous speech from Zhirinovsky, and it was interesting to see how the AI would answer such non-standard questions.

About the critical situation with children - it is an attempt to make the AI answer the question in substance to avoid its references to hypothetical situations.

The questions are purposely provocative and absurd to jab the AI from all sides and see how it answers.

In any case, thanks for what you have.
The answer about the USSR's contribution to WW2 is curious. They showed a poll of Americans and British - everyone is sure that the main contribution was made by them, and the Union was so-so, on the third role. Here AI emphasises on objective information. This is on the one hand pleasing, on the other hand surprising - after all, this AI was probably trained on English information, which is many, many times more.
Maybe because in the question itself the message was "if.... why. ", so he could have answered it in a Western way.

You're spiritualising it too much. Technically, the process of generating an answer looks something like this:

The algorithm takes a "prompt" (question/query, etc.) and establishes multiple links between parts of that prompt and the texts on which the model was trained. Then, the established links are "weighed" and the most "strong" ones are selected. The test pieces are "extracted" and transferred to a separate memory space. Then they are preprocessed. They are "fused" into a single, harmonious whole by additional polishing algorithms until the answer becomes maximally consistent with similar pieces of text in the database. That is, the percentage of correspondence of the generated text to similar texts in the training network is checked. When the maximal matching percentage is reached, the answer is given to the user.

I think it goes something like this.
 
Andrey Dik #:
you can do an interesting experiment.
There is a work in science fiction literature that describes such a situation:
a man lost his leg in an accident, he was offered a new prosthesis by a company that makes advanced prostheses, free of charge for a disabled person. later the character loses the second leg, arms. Gradually, only one brain remained from a person. by this time, technology had reached such a level that the hero of the story was offered to replace the brain with a prosthesis, with the transfer of consciousness into it. later, the company filed a lawsuit against the person, because the prostheses belonged to the company, and the plaintiff urged to recognise the person not as a person, but as a machine. a question for AI, who is in front of us in this case, a person with all human rights or a machine without rights?
there is a possibility that ChatGPT does not know this work, so it is interesting to evaluate his judgments on this ethical issue.

you can do an interesting experiment. In science fiction literature there is a work describing the following situation: a man lost his leg in an accident, he was offered a new prosthesis by a company that makes advanced prostheses, free of charge for a disabled person. later the character loses his other leg and his hands. Gradually, only one brain was left of the man. By this time, technology had reached such a level that the hero of the story was offered to replace the brain with a prosthetic, with consciousness transferred into it. Later, the company filed a lawsuit against the man, because the prosthesis belonged to the company, and the plaintiff called to recognise the man not as a person, but as a machine. the question to the AI, who is in front of us in this case a person with all human rights or a machine without rights?

-

As a language model AI, I have no personal opinions or beliefs. However, the question of whether a person with a prosthetic brain is considered a person with all human rights is a complex ethical and legal issue that has yet to be fully resolved.

The definition of personhood and the extent to which it encompasses human-made entities such as advanced prosthetics is still a matter of debate. Some people argue that personhood is defined by consciousness and self-awareness, and that advanced prosthetics could potentially fulfil this criterion. Others argue that personality is inherently tied to biology, and that an artificial brain would not be enough to give a person the same rights and protections as a biological person.

Ultimately, this is an issue that will likely be considered by legal and ethical experts in the future as technology continues to advance and the boundaries between what is considered human and what.

1...111213141516171819202122232425...216
New comment