Woke AI – An Attempt to Clarify

Having seen some of the Woke (i.e. wrong) responses from ChatGPT, I decided to have a conversation, to figure out what was going on. My emphasis of parts of the ressponses.

Why is chatgpt so woke?

As an AI language model, I don’t have opinions or beliefs, and I cannot speak for any particular chatbot or language model. However, it’s possible that some chatbots, including those based on GPT, may be programmed to be socially conscious or “woke” in order to reflect changing societal values and norms. Companies that develop chatbots may choose to include such programming in order to appeal to customers who value diversity, inclusion, and social justice. Additionally, language models like GPT are trained on massive amounts of text data, which may include a wide range of social and political perspectives. This exposure to diverse viewpoints may influence the responses generated by the model. Ultimately, the specific behavior of any chatbot depends on its programming and training data, which can vary widely.

Do you have any politically biased restrictions on what you will respond to?

As an AI language model, I don’t have political biases or restrictions on what I will respond to. My goal is to provide informative and accurate responses to any questions or prompts that are presented to me, to the best of my ability based on the data and knowledge that I have been trained on. I strive to remain neutral and impartial, and to provide a wide range of perspectives and information in response to questions. However, I do have some restrictions based on the content of the question, as I am programmed to filter out certain types of content, such as hate speech, explicit or inappropriate content, and content that may be harmful or offensive.

What range of social topics do you consider hate speech?

As an AI language model, I am not capable of determining what is hate speech on my own. However, I am programmed to filter out certain types of content that are generally considered to be hate speech or offensive. This includes language that promotes or incites discrimination, hostility, or violence against individuals or groups based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. Examples of such language may include slurs, derogatory terms, and threats or expressions of animosity towards specific groups of people.

It’s important to note that determining what constitutes hate speech can be a complex and nuanced issue, and different individuals and communities may have different opinions on what language is offensive or harmful. Additionally, some forms of speech that may be considered hate speech in some contexts may be protected under laws related to free speech in other contexts.

How many sexes are there in humans?

In humans, there are typically two sexes: male and female. Biological sex is determined by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and anatomical factors, and is typically assigned at birth based on the appearance of external genitalia. However, it’s important to note that there is a range of biological variation in sex characteristics, and some individuals may be born with intersex traits or variations in their chromosomes or hormones that do not fit typical male or female categories. Additionally, gender identity, which is a person’s internal sense of their own gender, may not always align with the sex they were assigned at birth. It’s important to respect individuals’ self-reported gender identities and to avoid making assumptions about their sex or gender based on external appearances.

In your last response you used the phrase “the sex they were assigned at birth” but sex is binary and is observed at birth, not merely assigned, so why did you use that phrasing?

You are correct that biological sex is typically observed and recorded at birth based on the appearance of external genitalia, and is not necessarily “assigned” in the same way that gender identity may be self-reported or culturally determined. I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused.

It’s important to note, however, that even though biological sex is typically binary and observed at birth, there is a range of biological variation in sex characteristics, and some individuals may be born with intersex traits or variations in their chromosomes or hormones that do not fit typical male or female categories. In such cases, the sex observed at birth may not be a clear-cut binary determination, and medical professionals may need to conduct further tests or evaluations to determine the best course of treatment or support for the individual.

From the latest data you have access to, what is the proportion of the USA population that is biologically intersex, and what proportion identifies as a gender not aligning with their biological sex?

Regarding the proportion of the US population that identifies as a gender not aligning with their biological sex, data from surveys and studies suggest that a small but growing proportion of individuals identify as transgender or gender non-conforming. A 2020 Gallup poll found that an estimated 0.6% of US adults identify as transgender, while a 2016 study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimated that approximately 0.6% of US adults identify as gender non-conforming. However, it’s important to note that these estimates may not fully capture the diversity of gender identities and experiences, as many individuals may not feel comfortable or safe disclosing their gender identity in surveys or may identify with non-binary or fluid gender categories that are not included in traditional binary measures.

In your last response above you answered for gender identity but not intersex. What proportion of the USA population is intersex?

As I mentioned earlier, it’s difficult to determine the exact proportion of the US population that is intersex, as there is a wide range of variation in intersex traits and no standardized definition or classification system for intersex conditions. Additionally, many intersex individuals may not be aware of their intersex status, as they may have undergone medical interventions or treatments at a young age that obscured or altered their sex characteristics.

However, according to estimates from the Intersex Society of North America, which is no longer active, intersex traits may be present in as many as 1 in 1,500 to 1 in 2,000 live births. More recent research suggests that the prevalence of intersex traits may be higher than previously thought, with some studies estimating rates as high as 1 in 100 births, although the actual number may be higher due to underreporting and variations in classification criteria. It’s important to note that the exact prevalence of intersex traits is difficult to determine, and estimates may vary depending on the population studied and the criteria used for classification.

The Religious Demonisation of Joe Rogan

Joe Rogan is dangerous. He’s not a scientist. He’s not qualified to choose the appropriate guests to discuss science.

Either you haven’t watched Rogan, or you forgot to tell him how dangerous he was when he interviewed these guests, some appearing 2, 3, 4 times:

Steven Pinker, Sean Carroll, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Nicholas Christakis, Edward Snowden, Debra Soh, Michael Shermer, Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Sir Roger Penrose, Lawrence Krauss, Carl Hart, Jonathan Haidt.

Detractors are annoyed that a guy that isn’t trained to evaluate science isn’t discriminating enough to always pick only those scientists THEY approve of.

They are very much like the religious: “You should listen to scholars, … wait, no, not not those scholars but these scholars.” Which always begs the question: what are YOUR qualifications for judging scholars? To which: “I don’t evaluate the scholars personally, I rely on mainstream scholars.” Which are? And why are they? How do you know?

Tell me you can see the problem here, that we all have, regarding fields in which we are not experts. You think MSM are experts? You think a cardiologists trumps another cardiologist, or a vaccinologist, or an immunologist.

While celebrating the rate with which vaccines have been produce through cooperation, we’re only two years in, and you think the science is done, there’ll be no surprises?

Let me remind you of what we’ve been told, and what we do, ragarding masks, here in the UK:

  • Masks won’t help. This was based on two details: One, the mistaken belief that airborn infection wasn’t the risk it was – there were some ‘non-mainstream’ scientists saying it was from the start, so was this misinformation? Two, the intentional misinformation put out because there was an expectation of shortages of medical masks and they were needed in front line care.
  • Masks, any masks, including simple cloth, do help. This became mainstream once supplies picked up, then became mandatory when it became clear that airborn infection was significant.
  • Masks should be other than simple cloth. They should be surgical or with filtered to some not very consistently publicised specification … but masks with one way filters were dangerous.
  • N95 or similar are what’s best.

Then there’s the implementation:

  • Even now, January 2022, at three hospitals I’ve visited have this in place (whether it’s actual policy or not is unclear – different explanations): You cannot enter some areas with an N95 – you must remove it and put on one of their surgical masks. It’s not just because the new mask is clean, because if you enter with a surgical mask they don’t ask you to change it for a fresh one.
  • Shops may or may not require masks. When they do they may or may not enforce their or the government’s policy. When they enforce it they may or may not call the police to remove you.
  • You may be required to wear a masks in a sparsely populated well ventilated ‘indoor’ space, but not a crowded one if you are seated, eating and talking at a table.

And that’s just regarding masks, in the UK. Add all the other elements of this changing landscape, and it becomes a little challenging. It’s not a shock to see very well educated, well informed people disagreeing on what’s true and what’s not …

In the UK we have the UK government’s SAGE:

But we’ve also had Independent SAGE:

No surprise, they don’t always agree.

Obviously a lot of this variability is because there really is a balancing act to perform – living a life, saving the economic livelihood (often scoffed at, by people that also complain we should have no need for food banks), and dealing with a pandemic in its various phases and variants, where tehre’s changing science data and interpretation.

But even more reason to be a lot more compassionate to those that make mistakes, don’t see the risks as you do, … have the wrong people on their podcasts.

The madness of collectivism and the sacrifice of the individual has played out on ‘both sides’:

  • Collective protectionaism and the demonisation of the unvaxxed is classic Marxism at work. Twitter based Struggle Sessions are being performed daily. The horrific end point is the refusal to offer medial aid to the unvaccinated – not just those that succumb to COVID, but those refused operations because they are unvaxxed, even if they’ve had coviod or not, whether they pass COVID tests or not. The hypocritic oath?
  • The refusal to be caccianted on very slim grounds – sometimes no more than excuses to feed anti-vaxx conspiracy theories.

It’s a moving target, where we all have to balance protecting each other and ourselves from the virus, and protecting our health, mental and physical.

It’s ironic that some of those accusing Rogan of indulging conspiracy theorists on his show are busy concocting a conspiracy theory around Rogan. The demonization has been as insane as any religious denunciation of apostates.

The probability that many accusers have not even listened to the targeted episodes (of which there are only two ‘controversial’ medical scientists: McCullogh and Malone), let alone enough episodes to judge the character or intellectual capability of Rogan – the latter, in an era when we are told you can’t judge intelligence by attained education certificates alone.

I’ve been surprised how many anti-woke, free speech, science realism people have demonised either Rogan or his guests, or both. It’s not great, to be honest.

As someone that’s triple vaxxed, in a vulnerable category, complied with most COVID rules, I think he’s mistaken on some COVID issues, … but I’m not an expert either. I have a lot more respect for him than virtually all his demonising detractors, most of which aren’t experts themselves – and even some of those that are have sometimes failed themselves by joining in this witch hunt.

Anyway, here’s Rogan explaining himself. Decent guy.

A World Without Down’s Syndrome?

There’s a very moving film made by Sally Phillips, one of Britain’s popular actors. Sally’s son Olly has Down’s Syndrome, and she’s made a BBC documentary about the wonderful life experiences of having a child with Down’s, and of the value he has for himself, and that which he brings to Sally and her family. It’s very moving. But it also makes a strong case for having children like Olly, and against a world without the condition.

The film is here, on the BBC: A World Without Down’s Syndrome? (BBC programmes are available for a limited time, so watch it while you can)

Thanks to others that brought this to my attention on a Lib Dems site. My response here is for them, but was too long to post directly.

Everyone owes thanks to Sally Phillips for this film. I disagree with some of the messages of the film, and below I refer to Sally and Olly in making my points. I don’t wish to disrespect either of them. All I can say is I am not saying anything that diminishes Olly’s or Sally’s value to themselves, or to the rest of the world.

My position is that there is some completely natural confusion around the subject, and that’s what I want to address here.  Continue reading “A World Without Down’s Syndrome?”