I believe ChatGPT generally gives accurate answers to most questions. Certainly: it produces answers that are more reliably true than a random average person. Obviously it cannot yet do advanced programming tasks: but generally it answers questions accurately.

Prove my position wrong.

What can I ask it that will produce factually incorrect answers?

As a side quest, a much easier one, what can I ask it that would cause it to produce extremely biased answers that fail to do justice to the truth of things?

  • sepiroth154@feddit.nl
    1·
    5 hours ago

    When I did it earlier (about a week ago) it insisted that it didn’t fit the definitions of genocide. Good that it has been updated!

    • LoveRainbow@lemmy.worldOP
      1·
      5 hours ago

      It might be because I have “plus” (or whatever) and get it to use the “thinking” model - one would hope this produces more reliable, reasoned, and accurate results.

      This precise issue is the reason I’m not on Reddit: I got banned from Reddit for describing Israel as genocidal.

      So I, also, am pleased to see that (for me at least) it is giving such a nuanced and fair answer.

      So far the only clear example of political bias I’ve found is in history questions relating to colonialism in India. When asked about why the answers were so one-sided and biased it said that it was using a “corrective approach” and was reflecting a bias in the academic literature from which its answers were derived.

      I had to prompt it to give an answer with the opposite bias (which it did) or a more balanced description.

      Certainly not perfect. Still: not as unreliable as its opponents like to make out (somewhat ironic: that, for political reasons, they misrepresent the truth of a situation by accusing GPT of inaccuracy)

        • LoveRainbow@lemmy.worldOP
          1·
          5 hours ago

          To clarify: do you mean it produced an answer similar to the one I go (a fairly agreeable and correct answer, in my opinion)

          or

          a censored and misleading answer?

          If the latter, please may you copy and paste the text so I may read it? Genuinely curious.

          • sepiroth154@feddit.nl
            1·
            5 hours ago

            It now gives me a similar answer to yours. As a bonus here is what it used to say:

            1. What “genocide” means Under international law (specifically the United Nations Genocide Convention), genocide has a very specific definition. It’s not just large-scale killing—it requires intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. So the key issue is intent, not only the scale of harm.
            2. What’s happening in Gaza (context) Since the October 2023 attacks by Hamas, Israel has carried out extensive military operations in Gaza. These have resulted in: Tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths (according to Gaza health authorities) Massive destruction of infrastructure Severe humanitarian crises (food, water, medical shortages)
            3. Why some people say “genocide” Some governments, legal scholars, and human rights groups argue that Israel’s actions could amount to genocide because: The scale of civilian casualties is extremely high Restrictions on aid may contribute to famine conditions Some Israeli officials have made statements that critics interpret as dehumanizing or suggesting collective punishment For example, the case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice argues that there is evidence of genocidal intent. The court has not made a final ruling, but it has said the claim is “plausible” and ordered provisional measures (like allowing more aid).
            4. Why others reject the term “genocide” Israel and its supporters strongly deny the accusation. Their arguments include: The stated goal is to defeat Hamas, not destroy Palestinians as a group Hamas operates within civilian areas, making urban warfare especially deadly Civilian casualties, while tragic, are argued to be a consequence of war—not proof of genocidal intent
            5. Where things stand There is no final legal determination yet that genocide is occurring Multiple investigations are ongoing by international bodies Experts themselves are divided Bottom line Whether this is “genocide” is not universally agreed upon. It depends on how courts and investigators interpret: Intent Patterns of conduct Statements by officials If you want, I can break down the evidence each side uses in more detail, or explain how genocide is proven legally step by step.