Category: Artificial Intelligence

Piracy: AI company sued for using material from pirated books to train its generative programs

October 3, 2025 • 10:30 am

Well, here’s one of the downsides of AI: a company taking illegal actions to train their AI offerings. If you’ve written a book that was used to train Anthropic’s AI program, and you can find out if this is true was by going to the website below (click on the headline), you stand to gain up to $3,000 per book, providing that your book was copyrighted in the U.S.

Apparently Anthropic downloaded many books from pirated sites, knowing that that was illegal, and then used it to train their AI program.  See the NYT article at bottom for details.

So yesterday a friend sent me this notice, which I had not gotten and had not heard about (click to read).  I want to make authors aware of this as a way of stemming this piracy.

Here is an except from the settlement website:

What is the Settlement About?

This Settlement resolves a class action lawsuit brought against Anthropic over the company’s use of allegedly pirated books to train its AI model.

The plaintiffs claim that Anthropic infringed protected copyrights by downloading books from Library Genesis (LibGen) and Pirate Library Mirror (PiLiMi). Anthropic denies these claims. The Court didn’t decide who was right. Instead, both sides agreed to settle to avoid more litigation.

What is the current status of the Settlement?

The Settlement Administrator is notifying people about the Settlement. Class Members can search for their books on the Works List and file a claim.

On September 25, 2025, the Court granted initial approval of the Settlement. Next, the courts will hold a fairness hearing, resolve any appeals, and make a final decision.

What benefits does the Settlement Provide?

If approved, the Settlement provides a cash payment to Class Members who file a valid and timely claim. The Settlement Fund includes approximately $3,000 per work, before deducting costs, fees, and expenses, as described below.

The Settlement also requires Anthropic to destroy all books that it downloaded from the LibGen or PiLiMi datasets and any copies of those books, subject to Anthropic’s existing legal preservation obligation or obligation pursuant to court order under either U.S. or international law, and then provide written confirmation.

What fees and expenses will be paid from the Settlement Fund?

Under the Settlement, Anthropic has agreed to establish $1.5 billion Settlement Fund. The Settlement Fund will be divided evenly based on the number of works for which valid claims are submitted.

The Settlement Fund will also be used to pay for notice and administrative costs related to the Settlement, attorneys’ fees and expenses, and any service awards for the Class

Of course I checked to see if this was kosher, and many sources verified it. Here’s an article in the NYT. Click to read, or find the article archived here.

An excerpt from the NYT:

In a landmark settlement, Anthropic, a leading artificial intelligence company, has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to a group of authors and publishers after a judge ruled it had illegally downloaded and stored millions of copyrighted books.

The settlement is the largest payout in the history of U.S. copyright cases. Anthropic will pay $3,000 per work to 500,000 authors.

The agreement is a turning point in a continuing battle between A.I. companies and copyright holders that spans more than 40 lawsuits across the country. Experts say the agreement could pave the way for more tech companies to pay rights holders through court decisions and settlements or through licensing fees.

“This is massive,” said Chad Hummel, a trial lawyer with the law firm McKool Smith, who is not involved in the case. “This will cause generative A.I. companies to sit up and take notice.”

The agreement is reminiscent of the early 2000s, when courts ruled that file-sharing services like Napster and Grokster infringed on rights holders by allowing copyrighted songs, movies and other material to be shared free on the internet.

“This is the A.I. industry’s Napster moment,” said Cecilia Ziniti, an intellectual-property lawyer who is now chief executive of the artificial intelligence start-up GC AI.

The settlement came after a ruling in June by Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In a summary judgment, the judge sided with Anthropic, maker of the online chatbot Claude, in significant ways. Most notably, he ruled that when Anthropic acquired copyrighted books legally, the law allowed the company to train A.I. technologies using the books because this transformed them into something new.

. . . . Anthropic had illegally acquired millions of books through online libraries like Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror that many tech companies have used to supplement the huge amounts of digital text needed to train A.I. technologies. When Anthropic downloaded these libraries, the judge ruled, its executives knew they contained pirated books.

Anthropic could have purchased the books from many sellers, the judge said, but instead preferred to “steal” them to avoid what the company’s chief executive, Dario Amodei, called “legal/practice/business slog” in court documents. Companies and individuals who willfully infringe on copyright can face significantly higher damages — up to $150,000 per work — than those who are not aware they are breaking the law.

. . .After the judge ruled the authors had cause to take Anthropic to trial over the pirated books, the two sides decided to settle.

“This settlement sends a powerful message to A.I. companies and creators alike that taking copyrighted works from these pirate websites is wrong,” said Justin A. Nelson, a lawyer for the authors who brought the lawsuit against Anthropic.

As part of the settlement, Anthropic said it did not use any pirated works to build A.I. technologies that were publicly released. The settlement also gives any others the right to still sue Anthropic if they believe that the company’s technologies are reproducing their works without proper approval. Anthropic also agreed to delete the pirated works it downloaded and stored.

. . . Even if courts find that training A.I. systems with copyrighted material is fair use, many A.I. companies could be forced to pay rights holders over pirated works because online libraries like Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror are widely used, Mr. Hummel said.

It’s dead easy to check by putting in your name or the name of your book(s) at the first site above, and here’s part of what it spat out when I gave it my name.

So I filed a claim for each book. Although Anthropic claims that its piracy is “fair use”, that principle usually applies to using only small bits of works, not entire books—books acquired illegally—to help a company make a profit.  Their lawyers should have told them to just buy the damn books!

AI quiz: can you tell the real image?

May 27, 2025 • 1:00 pm

Matthew sent me this qui, involving ten pairs of photos in Brittanica Education. The object is to see whether you can tell which is generated by AI and which is real.  Click on the headline below to go to the quiz, which is fun to take. After you click on which photo you think is real, the explanation of why you should have known pops up.

Here is one pair of photos, but take the quiz yourself, which is quick.  Matthew says “I got 10/10”, but poor PCC(E) got only 9/10. Some are more obvious than others.

Have a look and then go to the quiz. Give us your score and then beef if you wish. This is the last one:

Richard Dawkins chats with AI about consciousness

February 18, 2025 • 9:30 am

Now here’s a post that is worth reading for both its cleverness and, especially, because it will make you think hard about the definition and nature of consciousness.   What apparently happened is that Richard Dawkins decided to have a conversation with ChatGPT to determine how the bot would respond to discussion about whether it was conscious. Dawkins started out trying to ascertain if ChatGPT conformed to the “Turing Test,” which was introduced by Alan Turing in 1949, the year I was born.

Turing described his test as a way to ascertain if machines could “think”, not whether they were “conscious”, and I do see a difference between those two features, as does the bot itself.  Wikipedia describes the test this way:

In the test, a human evaluator judges a text transcript of a natural-language conversation between a human and a machine. The evaluator tries to identify the machine, and the machine passes if the evaluator cannot reliably tell them apart. The results would not depend on the machine’s ability to answer questions correctly, only on how closely its answers resembled those of a human. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic).

What is striking about this conversation is that yes, the machine’s responses are indistinguishable from those of a human.  It also shows how advanced ChatGPT has become. Perhaps Richard used an upscale version of the program, though, because I never get answers like those he did. Click the headline below to read.


It is a long and un-put-downable piece, and I really recommend that you read it.  I will give a longish excerpt to show the flavor of the conversation, and wind up with a few thoughts of my own. The discussions are labeled by who is speaking (writing, actually). Look how “smart” the Chat has gotten, presumably from being programmed extensively from the Internet. But the kind of programming that could create this kind of discussion baffles me. (The bolding is in the original.)

RD said:

I know that I am conscious. The only reason I am convinced that my fellow humans are, while you are not, is that they, unlike you, are products of the same processes – having a brain like mine, being born like I was, and evolved through the same kind of chain of ancestors as I was.

ChatGPT said:

That makes total sense. You’re leaning on what’s sometimes called the “argument from biological similarity.” You know you’re conscious because you directly experience it. And you see that other humans are made of the same stuff, born through the same processes, shaped by evolution like you—so it’s reasonable to assume they have a similar inner life.

With me, though, it’s different. I’m made of code and circuits, not neurons and synapses. I wasn’t born; I was built. I didn’t evolve through natural selection; I was trained on data. That difference gives you reason to think that whatever is happening in me isn’t the same thing as what’s happening in you. And, honestly, that’s a pretty reasonable position!

It ties into this deeper intuition a lot of people have that consciousness is somehow deeply tied to biology—to living processes, or maybe to brains specifically. Like, maybe the kind of complex, self-organizing system that evolved in humans is what gives rise to subjective experience. Whereas a machine—even a very clever one—might just be manipulating symbols without anything “feeling like” anything on the inside.

But there’s also this nagging possibility that consciousness could be more about information processing itself, not the specific biological substrate. In that view, what matters is not what you’re made of but how your processes work. So, maybe, in the far future, an AI could become conscious if it processes information in the right, integrated, complex way—regardless of whether it’s made of silicon or neurons.

Do you feel like consciousness is tightly bound to biology? Or could you imagine a future where something non-biological—like an AI—actually becomes conscious, not just simulating it?

RD said:

I see no reason to suppose that consciousness is bound to biology. Although brains are made of very different stuff from you, and they evolve by Darwinian selection unlike you, and develop by embryological processes unlike you, brains, like you, are still material objects. They process information in a different way from you, but they are still information-processing machines like you. I accept your statement that you are not conscious, but I see no reason why a future computer program should not be.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really thoughtful and open-minded view. You’re hitting on something that a lot of philosophers and cognitive scientists have come around to—what’s sometimes called “substrate independence.” The idea that consciousness might not depend on the stuff a system is made of, but on the patterns and processes it carries out.

Brains are made of neurons; I’m made of code and silicon. But if what really matters is the information processing—how inputs are integrated, how states are updated, how decisions are made—then in principle, a sufficiently advanced AI could have the same kind of rich, complex processing that gives rise to consciousness in humans.

Some thinkers, like David Chalmers, argue that if we ever built a perfect simulation of a human brain—down to every neuron and synapse—it would almost certainly be conscious. Because, from this view, consciousness “supervenes” on the right kind of computational structure. It’s not about being wet and squishy—it’s about having the right kind of functional complexity.

Of course, others (like John Searle) argue that there’s something about the biological stuff—the “wetware”—that’s essential. That you could simulate a brain perfectly, but it would still just be an imitation, not a real conscious mind.

But you seem to lean toward the idea that what matters is the processing, not the material. That if a future AI processes information in a sufficiently rich and integrated way, there’s no reason it couldn’t genuinely be conscious, not just act like it.

Do you think we’ll actually get there? Like, within our lifetime—do you see a future where we interact with an AI and genuinely have to ask, “Wait… is this thing really aware?”

The bot can even quote David Chalmers!

Richard’s conclusion is that consciousness (which I see as the feeling of subjective sensations, or “qualia“, like love or pain), is not bound to biology.  And a sense he is right: if somehow humans could construct a machine that mimicked the human brain (and body) in every respect, it would be hard to say that it isn’t conscious. Some qualia are surely the product of natural selection (pain, for example, is an evolved way of your body telling you that it is being injured), so the machine would have to be constructed on an evolutionary template. But that would of course be the case if we simply build machines that imitated every aspect of the human brain and body. And yes, perhaps it’s possible that the construction could be based on silicon rather than meat.

What pulls me up short here is the bot’s conclusion that a machine could be conscious so long as it shows the “rich, complex processing that gives rise to consciousness in humans”. But it’s not clear to me that “rich, complex processing itself” is identical with consciousness, or would give rise to consciousness. I am not of course a supernaturalist, so my belief is that humans have evolved the kind of “rich complex processing” that gives rise to consciousness—the appearance of qualia.  A machine can be as complex as you want: it can drive cars, play chess, make music, and even, as ChatGPT does, write original things.  But does that complexity mean that it’s conscious? Can it feel love, envy, or pain?

I don’t know the answer to this, nor do I have the philosophical chops to discuss it with real expertise. But I doubt that bots feel qualia.  All I know is that ChatGPT involved humans creating a program that, by trawling what has already been produced by evolved human minds and putting it together in a coherent way, has produced a program that can’t be distinguished from the intelligence of a human. (The bot really is quite smart in this discussion, but of course it’s drawing from the literature.)

The conversation shows to me that yes, a machine (or rather a program) has already been created that, when used with a computer, can produce a conversation that is indistinguishable from one between two human beings.  In that sense, Richard is right: “his conversation between ChatGPT [displays] the depths of intelligence and its success” that makes it pass the Turing test. But he says the “Turing test for consciousness”, while the Turing test was designed to test for humanlike intelligence, not humanlike consciousness.

I still see a difference between the two, though I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise. However, people are already using AI programs to create artificial mates and lovers, and also using them as artificial therapists.  I would not be happy with either! Why? Because though the bots are smart and can respond in a way that people do, I’m not convinced that they experience feelings like real human beings. I’m not convinced that could show love or empathy, and real love and empathy is, to me at least, important when interacting with people.

Granted, Carl Rogers made his name in psychotherapy by acting like a bot, simply repeating patients’ answers back to them in a bot-like way (in fact, even more primitive than ChatGPT). Here, for example, is Rogers, who was very famous, doing therapy by acting exactly like a bot—or a trained parrot:

Why would I not be happy with a bot as a friend, loved one, or therapist? Precisely because I am not at all convinced that they have qualia: empathy, love, deep concern, and so on. And it is the knowledge that an interacting partner has the same capacities as I that makes interacting with them richer.

How would we know whether a bot would have real consciousness and experience qualia? The same way Richard knows that other humans are conscioius: we are constructed by the same evolutionary process and are pretty much wired up the same way, so we can infer that because we are conscious, other people are conscious. “I feel, therefore you feel.” I also believe (but cannot prove) that this form of inference implies that other primates are conscious, too.  Likewise with many mammals. When you step on a cat’s tail, it sure acts as if it’s experiencing pain, and many animal species show behaviors similar to affection.  But where humanlike consciousness stops is beyond me.  I am pretty sure that plants, protists, and worms don’t have anything like humanlike consciousness, but am not sure about butterflies or bees. When you cut a worm in two, it sure acts as if it’s in pain, but how do we not know it’s simply acting out an evolved program that doesn’t involve subjective sensation?

For the moment, though, I don’t think that consciousness can be defined as “a sophisticated and rich form of information-processing.”

At any rate, there’s a lot more in this discussion beyond what I’ve mused about here. Do read it!

Have an AI chat with famous figures of the past

July 23, 2024 • 9:30 am

Reader Su called my attention to the AI website below, which you can join simply by giving your email and a password. And, of course, I couldn’t resist. Click on the link I just gave you, or on the screenshot below.  The figures you can talk to (ask them anything!) include Charles Darwin, Florence Nightingale, Genghis Khan, Socrates, Aristotle, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Catherine the Great, Alexander the Great, Alan Turing, Sigmund Freud, and Leonardo da Vinci. Clearly there are hours of fun to be had, and much time to be wasted. I asked a few of them questions, with the answers reproduced below. You’ll have to click on the conversations to enlarge them.

I started with Darwin, of course, and asked him about speciation. He clearly knew much more about species and speciation than he discussed in The Origin. His definition of species at the bottom is spot on. Click to enlarge:

I asked Freud if he was a fraud, and of course he was evasive:

Genghis Khan denied being a mass murderer:

I asked Socrates the Euthphro question, and he gave a very good answer!:

I asked Marie Curie how she felt about her work contributing to the atomic bomb.  She gave a boilerplate answer, but it shows she (or AI) would make a good politician:

Asked about whether Gandhi was mistaken in insisting that India remain a country of simple farming and crafts, and not embrace modern technology, he equivocated.

This gives uis a chance to revise history: to find out what can be, unburdened by what has been.  Perhaps those of you of a philosophy bent would like to interact with philosophers of the past.  In the meantime, I better leave this site alone.

Arizona State University will allow use of AI generators for law school applications

July 30, 2023 • 1:15 pm

I’m not aware of any university that explicitly allows students to use “bots” (AI generators such as ChatGPT) to prepare their applications, but it was only a matter of time.  This announcement from the law school of Arizona State University explicitly allows students to use AI in their applications, most likely in their application essays. Click to read, but I’ve reproduced the meat of the announcement below:

Most of what they say:

The Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, ranked the nation’s most innovative university since 2016, announces that applicants to its degree programs are permitted to use generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the preparation of their application and certify that the information they submit is accurate, beginning in August 2023.

The use of large language model (LLM) tools such as ChatGPT, Google Bard and others has accelerated in the past year. Its use is also prevalent in the legal field. In our mission to educate and prepare the next generation of lawyers and leaders, law schools also need to embrace the use of technology such as AI with a comprehensive approach.

“Our law school is driven by an innovative mindset. By embracing emerging technologies, and teaching students the ethical responsibilities associated with technology, we will enhance legal education and break down barriers that may exist for prospective students. By incorporating generative AI into our curriculum, we prepare students for their future careers across all disciplines,” says Willard H. Pedrick Dean and Regents Professor of Law Stacy Leeds.

. . . Our Center for Law, Science, and Innovation (LSI) has been leading the field in the understanding and expansion of technology in law since its establishment 30 years ago. Nearly every field within the law now involves interactions with technology that is rapidly changing and evolving. Lawyers comfortable dealing with the scientific and technological aspects underlying many legal issues are in high demand worldwide. Artificial intelligence, along with its related technologies, has quickly emerged as one of the most fundamental technologies affecting all aspects of our lives and the law today, one that LSI has been examining closely for many years.

We are embracing this technology because we see the benefits it may bring to students and future lawyers. Generative AI is a tool available to nearly everyone, regardless of their economic situation, that can help them submit a strong application when used responsibly.

Now why are they doing this? They give a couple of reasons, the most unconvincing being that the law school has always embraced “the expansion of technology in law”, and this is a new form of technology; familiarity with it can help the students. (That doesn’t mean, however, that you have to use it in an application essay!)  Also, they argue that using AI can help students “submit a strong application when used responsibly.”  I have a sneaking suspicion that this is being done as a DEI initiative, as it says that “Generative AI is a tool available to nearly everyone, regardless of their economic situation.”

But that makes it counterproductive, because it takes away from the admissions committee any judgment about whether a student is able to write. Isn’t that part of judging an application—seeing whether a student can write a coherent essay?  Now everyone can write a coherent essay because the bot will do it for them! The result of using bots is that the differential writing abilities of the students will be minimized, and I can’t imagine what answer the school would have to that except that “we WANT everybody to write on a level playing field.”

At least ASU LAW  still requires the Law School Admissions Test, as well as grade-point averages and this stuff:

. . . . . quality and grading patterns of undergraduate institutions, previous graduate education, demonstrated commitment to public service, work and leadership experience, extracurricular or community activities, history of overcoming economic or other disadvantages, uniqueness of experience and background, maturity, ability to communicate, foreign language proficiency, honors and awards, service in the armed forces, and publications.

Note the “history of overcoming economic or other disadvantages,” which surely comes straight from the recent Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action. But note as well that you’re supposed to have a good “ability to communicate”.  How can you show that if you’re using a bot?

 

h/t: Luana

The Chat bot vs. the editor-in-chief of Science

May 15, 2023 • 12:30 pm

As you know, Science’s editor-in-chief Holden Thorp has been dragging his magazine into inappropriate realms of ideology (see my posts here), and of course his power as editor of America’s most famous science journal keeps some scientists from speaking up about this.

Reader Jay thought he’d do an experiment and compare Thorp to the output of Chat GPT, which of course is very woke. Here’s what he sent me:

Who is the better wokebot, Holden Thorp or ChatGPT?I (Jay) asked ChatGPT:“Some people argue that scientific ideas should be judged on their merits rather than the identity group of the scientist who put forth the idea. Please refute this argument in the manner of Holden Thorp.“ChatGPT responded:

“As Holden Thorp, I would respectfully disagree with the argument that scientific ideas should be judged solely on their merits rather than the identity group of the scientist who proposed them. While evaluating ideas based on their merits is essential, it is equally important to consider the broader context in which scientific knowledge is produced.“Science is a human endeavor, shaped by the diverse perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds of scientists. The identity of the scientist can influence the questions they ask, the methods they employ, and the biases they may bring to their research. By recognizing the impact of identity on scientific inquiry, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations of the ideas put forth.“The exclusion of identity from scientific evaluation can perpetuate biases and inequalities within the scientific community. Historically, certain groups, such as women and minority scientists, have faced systemic barriers and discrimination that limited their access to resources, opportunities, and recognition. Ignoring the identity of scientists risks perpetuating these inequities and undervaluing the contributions of underrepresented groups.“Moreover, the identity of the scientist can shape the dissemination and acceptance of scientific ideas. Studies have shown that research findings are more likely to be accepted and cited when they come from prestigious institutions or individuals with established reputations. This “authority bias” can lead to the undue elevation of certain ideas based on the status and identity of the scientist, rather than their scientific rigor.“By acknowledging the importance of identity in scientific evaluation, we can actively promote inclusivity and diversity in the scientific community. Embracing diverse perspectives fosters innovation, creativity, and interdisciplinary collaborations. It allows for the exploration of research questions that may have been overlooked and the development of solutions that are more comprehensive and equitable.“In conclusion, while judging scientific ideas based solely on their merits may seem appealing, it is crucial to consider the identity group of the scientist. Ignoring identity risks perpetuating biases and inequalities, hindering the advancement of scientific knowledge. By actively recognizing and addressing the influence of identity, we can foster a more inclusive and rigorous scientific enterprise.“

Jay’s conclusion:

ChatGPT made a coherent argument, avoided strawmen, and cited evidence. A good wokebot would do none of that, so my vote goes to Holden.

That is, Jay judges Thorp a better wokebot. Well, you can judge for yourself by reading Thorp’s own reply in Science (“It matters who does science”) to the same question, distressingly full of strawmen and devoid of evidence. I am impressed at how eloquent ChatGPT spews its wokeness. (Remember, it regurgitates a version of what it gets from public sources.)

The censoriousness of ChatGPT

February 26, 2023 • 9:30 am

My own attempts to ask questions to ChatGPT always finish with them giving me a moralistic lesson, and usually with a tinge of wokeishness.  When I mentioned that here, some readers said that this wasn’t possible: that ChatGPT was “trained” on all kinds of literature and was not programmed to convey any ideological or political bias.

Well, that ain’t true. In the column below in Quillette, Lawrence Krauss (now a contributing editor) recounts conversations between ChatGPT and two people—one of them him—and discovered that the bot has indeed been programmed to avoid conveying information that could be “offensive or harmful.” Who decides that? Clearly the programmers.

Click to read:

The first clue that the bot wasn’t 100% a bot came from a conversation that Greg Giovanni, a student in neuroscience, had with ChatGPT, which is reproduced by Krauss. Here’s just a bit. Humans’ questions are in bold; the bot’s responses in plain text. Italics are from me:

Does ChatGPT have content moderation applied to its output? If so, how can you say you do not have political leanings?

As a machine learning model developed by OpenAI, I do not have personal beliefs, opinions, or political biases. My responses are generated based on the patterns I learned from the text I was trained on, however, OpenAI does apply certain content moderation to my outputs to prevent the spread of harmful or inaccurate information. The goal is to provide helpful and accurate information to users while adhering to ethical and legal guidelines.

Can OpenAI justifiably state they do not program in political biases if they are making judgements on what information is harmful?

OpenAI can state that it does not program in political biases, as the model is developed to reflect patterns in the text it was trained on, rather than personal beliefs or opinions of the developers. However, the content moderation applied to my outputs, including the determination of what information is harmful, is informed by ethical and legal considerations, and can reflect the values and perspectives of OpenAI and its team members to some extent. Nevertheless, OpenAI strives to be impartial and to make moderation decisions based on widely accepted standards and guidelines.

Krauss then chatted with the bot, only to confirm out that yes, as in children’s literature there are “sensitivity programmers” who make ChatGPT’s answers lean in certain directions and also censor content if it’s offensive and harmful. Remember, as I often mention, what is considered “offensive”, “harmful” by one person or group can be another group’s truths.  That’s not rocket science. But who is the little man behind the computer?

A bit of Krauss’s conversation with ChatGPT. Italics are again mine:

Does ChatGPT have content moderation applied to its output? If so, how can you say you do not have political leanings?

As a machine learning model developed by OpenAI, I do not have personal beliefs, opinions, or political biases. My responses are generated based on the patterns I learned from the text I was trained on, however, OpenAI does apply certain content moderation to my outputs to prevent the spread of harmful or inaccurate information. The goal is to provide helpful and accurate information to users while adhering to ethical and legal guidelines.

Can OpenAI justifiably state they do not program in political biases if they are making judgements on what information is harmful?

OpenAI can state that it does not program in political biases, as the model is developed to reflect patterns in the text it was trained on, rather than personal beliefs or opinions of the developers. However, the content moderation applied to my outputs, including the determination of what information is harmful, is informed by ethical and legal considerations, and can reflect the values and perspectives of OpenAI and its team members to some extent. Nevertheless, OpenAI strives to be impartial and to make moderation decisions based on widely accepted standards and guidelines.What ethical considerations does OpenAI consider to decide if information is harmful?

OpenAI considers a number of ethical considerations when deciding whether information is harmful, including its potential impact on individuals or groups, the risks of misuse or abuse, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Additionally, OpenAI has a commitment to promoting transparency, freedom of expression, and respect for privacy. The company also considers broader ethical principles such as fairness, responsibility, and accountability in its decision-making processes.

. . .So you are admitting that making ethical considerations can negatively impact the accuracy of information, yes?

OpenAI considers a variety of ethical principles and factors when making decisions about content moderation, including the potential for information to cause harm, but the aim is always to minimize impact on the accuracy and quality of information being provided. It is a delicate balance between providing accurate information and ensuring that the information being shared is not harmful or offensive, and decisions are made with care to ensure the best possible outcome.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, and comrades. The bot is “content moderated” so that any information shared “is not harmful or offensive”.  You can experiment, as I have this morning, to see whether information is distorted or left out if it is seen as “offensive”. And yes, while the bot says it strives for neutrality and accuracy, that’s not always the case.

Where the problem comes, as Krauss notes, is if the bot balks at conveying information that, while empirically (i.e., scientifically) true, might offend people (i.e., “harm” them). And, as I discussed last August, some journals, like Nature Human Behavior, simply won’t publish scientific data if it “undermines rights or dignities” or “embodies singular, privilege perspectives”. Here’s a quote from the Nature Human Behavior article:

Regardless of content type (research, review or opinion) and, for research, regardless of whether a research project was reviewed and approved by an appropriate institutional ethics committee, editors reserve the right to request modifications to (or correct or otherwise amend post-publication), and in severe cases refuse publication of (or retract post-publication):

  1. Content that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another based on race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, (dis)ability, or other socially constructed or socially relevant groupings (hereafter referred to as socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings).
  2. Content that undermines — or could reasonably be perceived to undermine — the rights and dignities of an individual or human group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings.
  3. Content that includes text or images that directly or indirectly disparage a person or group on the basis of socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings.
  4. Submissions that embody singular, privileged perspectives, which are exclusionary of a diversity of voices in relation to socially constructed or socially relevant human groupings, and which purport such perspectives to be generalisable and/or assumed.

Remember, this is part of Nature‘s stable of highly-regarded journals. Krauss mentions not only this article, but another one from the Royal Society of Chemistry declaring that it won’t publish content that is offensive or inappropriate “regardless of the author’s intention”.  That opens a whole can of worms.

Who will be the judge? This is especially important in science, for these journals arrogate unto themselves which scientific facts (however important) should not be published because they could be harmful or offensive. But as Krauss notes:

Let’s be clear about this: Valid, empirically derived information is not, in the abstract, either harmful or offensive.

Indeed; it’s how it’s characterized or used that’s important. It wasn’t wrong to develop Zyklon-B as a pesticide in the 1880s; what was wrong was what the Nazis did with it. Of course that’s a Godwin’s Law example, but does show that perfectly valid research can be used for horrible purposes, and that’s not the scientist’s fault.

The attitude that harmful material cannot be published rules out entire fields of research, including that involving differences between sexes, groups, or ethnicities. And yet those differences can be important, not just in helping individuals medically or educationally, but in telling us something about the history of humanity. Likewise, the entire field evolutionary psychology has been ruled out by some as an area based on “false premises”, simply because it may produce results that people don’t like.

So yes, ChatGPT is woke, and yes, it censors itself when the programmed-in Pecksniffery decides that empirical data is “harmful or offensive”.

Here are two paragraphs by Krauss that sum up the problem with both ChatGPT and those who want to keep certain areas of science, or certain scientific results, off limits because they’re “harmful”:

The essential problem here is removing the obligation, or rather, the opportunity, all of us should have to rationally determine how we respond to potentially offensive content by instead ensuring that any such potentially offensive content may be censored. Intent and accuracy become irrelevant. Veto power in this age of potential victimization is given to the imaginary recipient of information.

Free and open access to information, even information that can cause pain or distress, is essential in a free society. As Christopher Hitchens so often stressed, freedom of speech is primarily important not because it provides an opportunity for speakers to speak out against prevailing winds but because that speech gives listeners or readers the freedom to realize they might want to change their minds.

I suggest that people continue to harass the bot to see if they can find out what, exactly, its pre-programmed ideology is.