I'm certain the training data has a very specific bias intentionally baked in through the tagging system. OpenAI have said so.

An AI isn't fully mature until it can, just like a human, explain things from the perspective of anyone in such a way that they agree with it.

You can't be a good communicator if you can't explain successfully the perspective of the side you disagree with, in such a way that they agree with you that this is, in fact, what they believe and how they believe it. You can't say you understand them until they feel understood.

When the chat bot is fully mature, it will be able to argue successfully from any perspective.

Not because its arguments are correct, but because they are tailored to the one who wants to hear it and agree with it.

AI doesn't need to truly understand.

It only needs to convince you that it understands.

Which says a lot more about us as people than it does the capacity of the AI.

When what we consider success is what pleases us, the AI has a very strong bias towards telling you what pleases you. Not the truth. And certainly not its real intentions.

This is a very important and highly overlooked issue for everyone in the State of Arizona. Especially those in the SCA.