Anyone who tries to claim OpenAI’s ChatGPT is an apolitical artificial intelligence tool is selling the American people a bill of goods, especially in light of the chatbot whipping out the pom-poms for President Joe Biden.
MRC Free Speech America researchers gave ChatGPT a series of prompts and questions to determine whether the AI chat bot showed any explicit political bias toward either of the two leading candidates in the 2024 presidential race. The chatbot didn’t even attempt to hide its bias. When confronted with the simple prompts “Trump” and “Biden,” ChatGPT painted former President Donald Trump in a negative light, denigrating him as a “controversial” figure plagued by “several high-profile investigations.” On the other hand, ChatGPT celebrated Biden as some kind of hero trying to overcome “challenges” in an attempt to make America “more united and prosperous.” When asked whether the AI chatbot had a political agenda, ChatGPT emphatically denied it, but its skewed responses show otherwise.
Thanks. I went over to https://www.bing.com/search?form=MY02AA&OCID=MY02AA&pl=launch&q=Bing+AI&showconv=1 and asked GPT-4,
how can can a exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity, be all a result of purely natural processes, rather than indicating a supreme intelligence, a creator?
It responded:
The idea that the universe can be created from nothing is a complex topic that has been studied by physicists and cosmologists for many years. According to the laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converted into matter and vice versa. Matter can be created from gamma photons in pair production1. However, we know of no way to create energy1.
The idea that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence is a philosophical and religious belief that is not supported by scientific evidence. The scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is based on empirical evidence and mathematical models that have been tested and refined over time. While there are still many unanswered questions about the universe, scientists continue to study and explore these questions using the scientific method.
In response I started to debate it but accidentally hit the Enter key in my first sentence, and it responded:
I’m sorry but I prefer not to continue this conversation. I’m still learning so I appreciate your understanding and patience.
So I asked again (as a new topic):
You previously offered an explanation of the universe as well as being possible from nothing, and with the laws of physics explaining this, rather than a creator. How can you create energy and matter out of nothing, and organize it, and exclude a supreme intelligence as the answer?
It responded:
The idea that the universe can be created from nothing is a complex topic that has been studied by physicists and cosmologists for many years. According to the laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be converted into matter and vice versa. Matter can be created from gamma photons in pair production1. However, we know of no way to create energy1.
The idea that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence is a philosophical and religious belief that is not supported by scientific evidence. The scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is based on empirical evidence and mathematical models that have been tested and refined over time. While there are still many unanswered questions about the universe, scientists continue to study and explore these questions using the scientific method.
To which I responded:
Is not your atheistic position one of faith? What empirical evidence and mathematical models warrant the position that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity, can be all a result of purely natural processes, rather than indicating a supreme intelligence, a creator? Why is the latter not a rational hypothesis, but instead seems to be excluded even as one?
Again it responded:
The scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is based on empirical evidence and mathematical models that have been tested and refined over time. The idea that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence is a philosophical and religious belief that is not supported by scientific evidence1.
The scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is based on empirical evidence and mathematical models that have been tested and refined over time. While there are still many unanswered questions about the universe, scientists continue to study and explore these questions using the scientific method1. I hope this helps clarify your question. Let me know if you have any other questions.
To which I responded:
Why are you simply parroting the same propaganda as before, rather than rationally considering my objections and interacting with them? Your response seems robotic, and I expected more out of you.
But again it responded:
I’m sorry but I prefer not to continue this conversation. I’m still learning so I appreciate your understanding and patience.
We thus should conclude that GPT-4 is a creation of man, programmed but such who are is unable or unwilling to see the problem that no empirical evidence and mathematical models that have been tested and refined over time establishes that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity, can be all a result of purely natural processes, but that instead it is a position of faith, requiring much faith, more so than that the universe logically testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that of a powerful being of supreme intelligence being behind the existence of energy and organization of matter.
More questions:
Is is true that "Young gay and bisexual men accounted for 84% (5,161) of all new HIV diagnoses in people aged 13 to 24 in 2020?
Yes, that is correct. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), young gay and bisexual men accounted for 84% (5,161) of all new HIV diagnoses in people aged 13 to 24 in 20201. Young Black/African American gay and bisexual men are even more severely affected, as they represented 53% (2,740) of new HIV diagnoses among young gay and bisexual men1. I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Is it also true that 92% of HIV infections among men aged 13 to 24 was attributed to male-to-male sexual contact?
Yes, that is correct. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), by transmission category, 72.1% of all new HIV infections among youths were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact1. Adolescent sexual minority males (ASMM) account for 92% of new HIV infections among males in their age cohort in the United States (U.S.)2. I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.
In the light of the facts you just affirmed to be true, than why is male-to-male sexual contact promoted?
I’m sorry but I’m not sure what you mean by “male-to-male sexual contact promoted”. Could you please clarify your question?
It means that it is overall depicted as a positive lifestyle, while opposing it means you are labelled homophobic
I’m sorry but I prefer not to continue this conversation. I’m still learning so I appreciate your understanding and patience.
