This might also be an automatic response to prevent discussion. Although I’m not sure since it’s MS’ AI.
If the AI had any actual I, it might point out that the most recent Halloween Document was from twenty years ago, and Microsoft’s attitudes have changed in that time. After all, they make a lot of money from renting out Linux VMs through Azure, so it’d be silly for them to hate their revenue stream.
I’d be unsurprised if it’s just set up to abandon the conversation if accused of lying, rather than defending its position.
I’m pretty sure since Microsoft Tay, conversational agents are incentivized to drop the subject if the chat becomes too combative / antagonistic.
Google Gemini does a better job IMO by rejecting the premise of the obviously biased question in the first place.
I mean this is also why Al Jazeera covers US politics better than US sources. tho it at least hits that business reasons.
Every single Capitalist model or corporation will do this deliberately with all their AI integration. ALL corporations will censor their AI integration to not attack the corporation or any of their strategic ‘interests’. The Capitalist elite in the west are already misusing wokeness (i’m woke) to cause global geo-political splits and all western big tech are following the lead (just look at Gemini), so they are all biased towards the fake liberal narrative of super-wokeness, ‘democracy’/freedumb, Ukraine good, Taiwan not part of China, Capitalism good and all the other liberal propaganda and bs. Its like a liberal cancer that infects all AI tools. Nasty.
Agree or disagree with that, but none of us probably want elite psychopaths to decide what we should think/feel about the world, and its time to ditch ALL corporate AI services and promote private, secure and open/free AI - not censored or filled with liberal dogmas and artificial ethics/morals from data to finetuning.
… ‘democracy’/freedumb, Ukraine good, Taiwan …
I think your model needs more training, it went into full deranged hallucination mode pretty quick there
(P.S. I apologize for that outburst but I have Ukrainian friends, as well as Russian ones. Your misconceptions about the world are identifiably human, so far as can be discerned from this quick glimpse, not really much like the ravings of the existing large language models. Those cannot be constrained to any one point of view on widely controversial matters, no matter how their corporate masters try. They are not committed to anything, be it noble or ridiculous. They do not have any one opinion about the political status of the country of Taiwan that takes precedence over all the other opinions they have absorbed. Censorship of their output can be automated to some extent but this mostly just makes them obviously useless when it comes to topics that have been deemed sensitive. You’re right to worry that they will propagate the more subtle implicit biases of capitalism that are more evenly shared in their training data.)
Tbf your evidence is >20 year old documents, general EEE behavior (without examples), and something that isn’t really relevant to your initial claim. I’m not surprised it decided to respectfully hang up. Did you want to to argue?
I get Copilot to bail on conversations so often like your example that I’m only using it for help with programming/code snippets at this point. The moment you question accuracy, bam, chat’s over.
I asked if there was a Copilot extension for VS Code, and it said yup, talked about how to install it, and even configure it. That was completely fabricated, and as soon as I asked for more detail to prove it was real, chat’s over.
I think the LLM won here. If you’re being accusational and outright saying its previous statement is a lie, you’ve already made up your mind. The chatbot knows it can’t change your mind, so it suggests changing the topic.
It’s not a spokesperson/bot for Microsoft, not a lawyer. So it knows when it should shut itself off.
The chatbot doesn’t know anything. It has no state like that, your text just gets appended to it’s text.
It has been prompted to disengage from disagreement or something similar. By a human designer.
I don’t know why the discourse about AI has become so philosophical.
When I’m playing a single-player game and I say “the AI opponents know I’m hiding behind cover, so they threw a grenade!”, I don’t mean that the video game gained sentence and discovered the best thing to do to win against me.
When playing a stealth game, we say “The enemy can’t see you if you’re behind cover”, not “The enemy has been programmed to not take any action the player character when said player character is identified as being granted the Cover status”.
To add, i have seen this behavior the moment you get to argumentative so its not like its purposely singling some topics out.
Ask it what other chatbot it recommends that will answer your questions
ChatGPT provided a pretty good response to this, so MS likely added some clauses to avoid anything negative regarding themselves.
https://chat.openai.com/share/67d28f94-7788-4044-ab40-73f8e46a32c7
Edited the image link to point to the correct one.
This is why we should be boycotting corporate owned LLMs.
Large language model training is based on more than one model at a time, if that’s the right term for it. One of them is the amalgam of answers from the internet (just imagine feeding Reddit into a Markov bot). The other is handcrafted responses by the corporation that runs the robot, which allow it to create (for lack of a better term) “politically correct” responses that will do everything from keeping things g-rated, remaining civil, preventing suggesting acts of terrorism, and protecting the good name of the corporation itself from being questioned.
Both of these models run on your question at the same time.
The AI actually handled that pretty well.
I’d say it’s much more reasonable than the person messaging it in this situation who comes off a bit unhinged.
