Answers.Body: <p>ChatGPT does not actually know anything. But more importantly even, it does not know this fact! Hence, it does not know that it does not know.</p>
  <p>It is only good at combining text.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-14T12:38:32.533Z
Answers.Text: Note that this is just a philosophical point of view. Who decides that people also know anything? What do you mean by "knowing"? Maybe we also don't know anything. We have memories, which we recall with some algorithm, based on some context. You need to define "to know". Because, if "to know" means "have knowledge of something" and "knowledge" means "info or facts", then ChatGPT certainly knows something, because it can give you some facts. Either it's aware of what it says, it's another question, which also depends on what you mean by "awareness".
Answers.UserDisplayName: nbro
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-14T12:48:05.950Z
Answers.Text: So, what one can say for sure is that ChatGPT may give you some facts and correct info, but these facts are just the "most likely" outputs given the data and the inductive bias, i.e. it's a statistical model, and thus it's limited by how the model is defined, the data and the training algorithm. So, it can also give you completely wrong info. The way it produces some output $x$ is, we can say, not equal to how we produce the same output and, most likely, not even close to how we produce it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: nbro
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-15T19:09:13.683Z
Answers.Text: There is [a great article](https://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html) describing this phenomena (which it calls "pseudo-profound bullshit") when done by humans. Cult leaders and snake-oil salesmen are great at stringing together buzzwords into grammatically correct but meaningless sentences, which the unaware listener might think to hold some deep knowledge.
Answers.UserDisplayName: vsz
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-15T20:58:45.997Z
Answers.Text: @nbro the aspect of awareness is relevant, I agree. One way to naively put it, is when there is knowledge/awareness regarding the fact, that a specific knowledge is not available.
  
  Humans, in the best case, are aware of their individual lack of knowledge. We have some sort of table of content about things we know. We also know that we may have heard something, but never thought it through ourselves.
  
  ChatGPT and other AI models store and recombine/associate.
Answers.UserDisplayName: DrCommando
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-16T08:59:51.483Z
Answers.Text: So interesting comments. Knowledge about facts, and knowledge about how to check new facts against our knowledge base. How to expand our table of contents through valid reasoning.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jaume Oliver Lafont
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-12T13:23:30.503Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-12-12T13:23:30.503Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: DrCommando
Answers.Body: <p>ChatGPT and other GPT-based machine learning models don't actually know anything in the sense you're thinking of.  ChatGPT is a distant descendant of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain" rel="noreferrer">Markov chain</a> text generators such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociated_press" rel="noreferrer">Dissociated Press</a>, and works by predicting what is most likely to follow a given sequence of text.</p>
  <p>So, when you ask it &quot;Does openai know how to play chess?&quot;, what you're actually getting is the answer to the question &quot;What is most likely to follow the phrase 'Does openai know how to play chess?'?&quot;</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-04-30T04:35:54.943Z
Answers.Text: @Shub, the same way it answers questions.  Code isn't fundamentally any different from written language, and ChatGPT tends to make the same sorts of mistakes, producing code that is syntactically correct but semantically nonsensical.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mark
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-14T00:31:30.803Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-12-14T00:31:30.803Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mark
Answers.Body: <p>The original question asked about &quot;<strong>an AI</strong>&quot; generally, yet most of the responses here focus on OpenAI's ChatGPT specifically. Seems like the answer would depend on the specific type of AI being used, not limited to just large language model-based chatbots, but considering other types of knowledge representation systems more generally.</p>
  <p>Not being an AI expert, I can't speak to this, but here's some good background reading: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-16T08:47:26.413Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-12-16T08:47:26.413Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Trutane
Answers.Body: <p>I agree with most the former answers here, and apologies I don't have high enough points yet to comment so had to do this as an answer, but I believe due to inaccuracies, lack of fact checking capabilities etc... in the data its trained on up to 2021 currently at the time of writing, fine tuning via it's API has become popular I believe. Although you were mainly asking about ChatGPT itself I felt its a good idea to consider it's API as part of that which is just as easily accessible, I am currently learning how to fine tune it my self for more specific and accurate results.</p>
  <p>So in respect of the question: <strong>Shouldn't the AI reject my question on a subject which is not in its known criteria?
  It does so for many other subjects.</strong></p>
  <p>It can possibly do this if you train / fine tune it another way on the API, but for the latter part, using the normal ChatGPT and ChatGPT plus user interface part of the site, not the API the AI mostly will not reject your question unless it breaches ethical and moral constructs, which I think is also another important aspect to consider when gaining information from ChatGPT.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-04-21T13:18:45.343Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-04-21T13:18:45.343Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jamiecropley
Answers.Body: <p>ChatGPT is a large language model. That means it's very good at stringing together words in ways that humans tend to use them. It's able to construct sentences that are grammatically correct and sound natural, for the most part, because it's been trained on language.</p>
  <p>Because it's good at stringing together words, it's able to take your prompt and generate words in a grammatically correct way that's similar to what it's seen before.
  But that's all that it's doing: generating words and making sure it sounds natural. It doesn't have any built-in fact checking capabilities, and the manual limitations that OpenAI placed can be fairly easily worked around. Someone in the OpenAI Discord server a few days ago shared a screenshot of the question &quot;What mammal lays the largest eggs?&quot; ChatGPT confidently declared that the elephant lays the largest eggs of any mammal.</p>
  <p>While much of the information that ChatGPT was trained on is accurate, always keep in mind that it's just stringing together words with no way to check if what it's saying is accurate. Its sources may have been accurate, but just writing in the style of your sources doesn't mean that the results will themselves be true.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-12T12:47:49.247Z
Answers.Text: Exactly. It finds the words that are most likely to follow the prompt, and has no understanding of anything else.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Oliver Mason
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-12T16:32:53.960Z
Answers.Text: I know that on previous GPT models, these kinds of questions with no right answer could lead to some amusing answers. More like this: [Baltimore Orioles effect](https://www.aiweirdness.com/baltimore-orioles-effect/) and [Botsplaining](https://www.aiweirdness.com/botsplaining/) and [Galactica: the AI knowledge base that makes stuff up](https://www.aiweirdness.com/galactica/) and when humans do it [Comparative Illusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_illusion)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Criticize SE actions means ban
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-12T22:40:03.033Z
Answers.Text: It's fairly easy to confuse ChatGPT once you understand this principle. For example, if you ask it to describe the Avatar movies it'll confuse James Cameron's Avatar with Avatar: The Last Airbender. Or if you ask it to describe how the planets follow probabilistic orbitals it'll happily confuse Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian gravity for you. All it takes is two concepts that use the same set of words, because the language model has no deeper understanding.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-14T09:32:00.480Z
Answers.Text: I'd like to point out that being a "large language model" does not imply "it's very good at stringing together words in ways that humans tend to use them", so I'd rephrase your first sentence, as it implies that every large language model is good at doing that, which may not be the case. What if it's not trained or does not have the correct inductive bias or was trained with "bad" or little data? These are all factors that affect the quality of the LM. Given the attention that this answer and post got, you can be more precise, although some people understand that one does not imply the other
Answers.UserDisplayName: nbro
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-14T12:36:59.323Z
Answers.Text: Moreover, you claim "making sure it sounds natural". Right now, I am not familiar with the details of the ChatGPT, but I will soon be, but does it really **ensure** it sounds natural? If it's a statistical model with no constraints on "naturalness", then I doubt that claim is true.
Answers.UserDisplayName: nbro
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-14T13:50:59.123Z
Answers.Text: This is why it's less impressive than it looks. Still impressive, sure, but more showy than anything else.
Answers.UserDisplayName: OpenAI was the last straw
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-18T12:37:52.903Z
Answers.Text: @David : thanks for the hint about concepts using the same words for different meanings. I asked some questions which mix the concept of entropy from thermodynamics with the concept of entropy from information theory, and the results were hilarious. But the wording was so natural and so confident, that it could easily fool someone who has only a very superficial knowledge about the topic. I fear ChatGPT will be used by pseudoscientists a lot, because it can produce very scientific-sounding articles which seem to have a deeper meaning even when they don't.
Answers.UserDisplayName: vsz
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-03-15T17:15:56.267Z
Answers.Text: Seems [that know it generates the correct answer](https://i.sstatic.net/M9Qge.png) for that specific question. It's learning.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Braiam
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-06-06T05:44:53.990Z
Answers.Text: @Shub You can think of it as LLM generating words letter by letter (what are words anyway but a sequence of letters?) Internally, LLM uses subwords (which may be individual letters) stringed together to form a text output. A code is a text, so it can generate it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: justhalf
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-12-12T05:41:25.137Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-12-12T05:41:25.137Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mithical
Body: <p>After seeing <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/421831">StackOverflow's banning of ChatGPT</a>, I explored it out of curiosity. It's marvellous as it can write code by itself!</p>
  <p>Later to check if it knows chess as well like Google-Deepmind's AlphaZero AI, I asked below questions:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p><strong>Me</strong>: Does openai know how to play chess?<br />
  <strong>OpenAI</strong>: It is not clear whether OpenAI knows how to play chess. As an artificial intelligence research organization, OpenAI has developed a number of advanced machine learning algorithms and techniques that allow AI systems to learn and adapt to new tasks and situations. ...</p>
  </blockquote>
  <blockquote>
  <p><strong>Me</strong>: In a chess if white has a king &amp; bishop and if black has only a king, then who can win with a perfect play?<br />
  <strong>OpenAI</strong>: In a chess game where white has a king and a bishop and black has only a king, <strong>it is possible for either player to win with perfect play</strong>. This type of endgame is known as a king and bishop versus king endgame, and it is considered one of the most challenging in chess. ...</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Now this answer is entirely wrong. Because as soon as only a bishop (or a knight) remains apart from the kings, it's instantly <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/30561/is-it-possible-to-win-with-a-king-and-one-bishop-vs-a-king">declared as a draw</a>!</p>
  <p><strong>Question</strong>: Shouldn't the AI reject my question on a subject which is not in its known criteria?<br />
  It does so for many other subjects.</p>
  <hr />
  <p><strong>Note</strong>: Should we replace <code>bishop = rook</code> then ChatGPT answers exactly the same answer with replacing those pieces. However that happens to be true.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-12-13T10:41:55.087Z
Comments.Text: I think a good way to think about ChatGPT is that it doesn't know anything about anything, and its goal is to bluff its way through a conversation by guessing what you want to hear. Sometimes, the bluff is easier to call.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Stef
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-12-13T15:57:49.263Z
Comments.Text: "that happens to be true" (in the rook case) - really? The GPT answer appears to be saying that **either** player can win; I'm not a chess expert but I'm struggling to see how black can force a win with just a king?
Comments.UserDisplayName: psmears
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-12-13T18:11:06.610Z
Comments.Text: @psmears, sorry.. A small correction here is that, if i replace "bishop" with "rook" then the chatgpt correctly says that white *can* win. No mention of Black's win.
Comments.UserDisplayName: iammilind
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-12-13T18:45:08.507Z
Comments.Text: Related: The [Chinese room](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) argument
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ouroborus
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-12-14T04:37:10.927Z
Comments.Text: "*that happens to be true*" you might want to experiment by retrying the same prompt multiple times and observe that the response may change or even contradict previous response.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andrew T.
Tags: <natural-language-processing><chat-bots><question-answering><board-games><chatgpt>
Title: How does an AI like ChatGPT answer a question in a subject which it may not know?
UserDisplayName: iammilind
ThreadText: # How does an AI like ChatGPT answer a question in a subject which it may not know?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-12-12)
  
  After seeing [StackOverflow's banning of ChatGPT](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/421831), I explored it out of curiosity. It's marvellous as it can write code by itself!
  
  Later to check if it knows chess as well like Google-Deepmind's AlphaZero AI, I asked below questions:
  
  > **Me**: Does username_16 know how to play chess?  
  > **username_16**: It is not clear whether username_16 knows how to play chess. As an artificial intelligence research organization, username_16 has developed a number of advanced machine learning algorithms and techniques that allow AI systems to learn and adapt to new tasks and situations. ...
  
  > **Me**: In a chess if white has a king & bishop and if black has only a king, then who can win with a perfect play?  
  > **username_16**: In a chess game where white has a king and a bishop and black has only a king, **it is possible for either player to win with perfect play**. This type of endgame is known as a king and bishop versus king endgame, and it is considered one of the most challenging in chess. ...
  
  Now this answer is entirely wrong. Because as soon as only a bishop (or a knight) remains apart from the kings, it's instantly [declared as a draw](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/30561/is-it-possible-to-win-with-a-king-and-one-bishop-vs-a-king)!
  
  **Question**: Shouldn't the AI reject my question on a subject which is not in its known criteria?  
  It does so for many other subjects.
  
  ---
  
  **Note**: Should we replace `bishop = rook` then ChatGPT answers exactly the same answer with replacing those pieces. However that happens to be true.
  
  **Tags:** natural-language-processing, chat-bots, question-answering, board-games, chatgpt
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I think a good way to think about ChatGPT is that it doesn't know anything about anything, and its goal is to bluff its way through a conversation by guessing what you want to hear. Sometimes, the bluff is easier to call.  
  > **username_2**: "that happens to be true" (in the rook case) - really? The GPT answer appears to be saying that **either** player can win; I'm not a chess expert but I'm struggling to see how black can force a win with just a king?  
  > **username_0**: @username_2, sorry.. A small correction here is that, if i replace "bishop" with "rook" then the chatgpt correctly says that white *can* win. No mention of Black's win.  
  > **username_3**: Related: The [Chinese room](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) argument  
  > **username_4**: "*that happens to be true*" you might want to experiment by retrying the same prompt multiple times and observe that the response may change or even contradict previous response.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2022-12-12. Score: 72 | Accepted answer
  
  ChatGPT is a large language model. That means it's very good at stringing together words in ways that humans tend to use them. It's able to construct sentences that are grammatically correct and sound natural, for the most part, because it's been trained on language.
  
  Because it's good at stringing together words, it's able to take your prompt and generate words in a grammatically correct way that's similar to what it's seen before.
  But that's all that it's doing: generating words and making sure it sounds natural. It doesn't have any built-in fact checking capabilities, and the manual limitations that username_16 placed can be fairly easily worked around. Someone in the username_16 Discord server a few days ago shared a screenshot of the question "What mammal lays the largest eggs?" ChatGPT confidently declared that the elephant lays the largest eggs of any mammal.
  
  While much of the information that ChatGPT was trained on is accurate, always keep in mind that it's just stringing together words with no way to check if what it's saying is accurate. Its sources may have been accurate, but just writing in the style of your sources doesn't mean that the results will themselves be true.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_13**: Exactly. It finds the words that are most likely to follow the prompt, and has no understanding of anything else.  
  > **username_14**: I know that on previous GPT models, these kinds of questions with no right answer could lead to some amusing answers. More like this: [Baltimore Orioles effect](https://www.aiweirdness.com/baltimore-orioles-effect/) and [Botsplaining](https://www.aiweirdness.com/botsplaining/) and [Galactica: the AI knowledge base that makes stuff up](https://www.aiweirdness.com/galactica/) and when humans do it [Comparative Illusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_illusion)  
  > **username_15**: It's fairly easy to confuse ChatGPT once you understand this principle. For example, if you ask it to describe the Avatar movies it'll confuse James Cameron's Avatar with Avatar: The Last Airbender. Or if you ask it to describe how the planets follow probabilistic orbitals it'll happily confuse Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian gravity for you. All it takes is two concepts that use the same set of words, because the language model has no deeper understanding.  
  > **username_6**: I'd like to point out that being a "large language model" does not imply "it's very good at stringing together words in ways that humans tend to use them", so I'd rephrase your first sentence, as it implies that every large language model is good at doing that, which may not be the case. What if it's not trained or does not have the correct inductive bias or was trained with "bad" or little data? These are all factors that affect the quality of the LM. Given the attention that this answer and post got, you can be more precise, although some people understand that one does not imply the other  
  > **username_6**: Moreover, you claim "making sure it sounds natural". Right now, I am not familiar with the details of the ChatGPT, but I will soon be, but does it really **ensure** it sounds natural? If it's a statistical model with no constraints on "naturalness", then I doubt that claim is true.  
  > **username_16**: This is why it's less impressive than it looks. Still impressive, sure, but more showy than anything else.  
  > **username_7**: @username_15 : thanks for the hint about concepts using the same words for different meanings. I asked some questions which mix the concept of entropy from thermodynamics with the concept of entropy from information theory, and the results were hilarious. But the wording was so natural and so confident, that it could easily fool someone who has only a very superficial knowledge about the topic. I fear ChatGPT will be used by pseudoscientists a lot, because it can produce very scientific-sounding articles which seem to have a deeper meaning even when they don't.  
  > **username_17**: Seems [that know it generates the correct answer](https://i.sstatic.net/M9Qge.png) for that specific question. It's learning.  
  > **username_18**: @Shub You can think of it as LLM generating words letter by letter (what are words anyway but a sequence of letters?) Internally, LLM uses subwords (which may be individual letters) stringed together to form a text output. A code is a text, so it can generate it.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2022-12-12. Score: 20
  
  ChatGPT does not actually know anything. But more importantly even, it does not know this fact! Hence, it does not know that it does not know.
  
  It is only good at combining text.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: Note that this is just a philosophical point of view. Who decides that people also know anything? What do you mean by "knowing"? Maybe we also don't know anything. We have memories, which we recall with some algorithm, based on some context. You need to define "to know". Because, if "to know" means "have knowledge of something" and "knowledge" means "info or facts", then ChatGPT certainly knows something, because it can give you some facts. Either it's aware of what it says, it's another question, which also depends on what you mean by "awareness".  
  > **username_6**: So, what one can say for sure is that ChatGPT may give you some facts and correct info, but these facts are just the "most likely" outputs given the data and the inductive bias, i.e. it's a statistical model, and thus it's limited by how the model is defined, the data and the training algorithm. So, it can also give you completely wrong info. The way it produces some output $x$ is, we can say, not equal to how we produce the same output and, most likely, not even close to how we produce it.  
  > **username_7**: There is [a great article](https://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html) describing this phenomena (which it calls "pseudo-profound bullshit") when done by humans. Cult leaders and snake-oil salesmen are great at stringing together buzzwords into grammatically correct but meaningless sentences, which the unaware listener might think to hold some deep knowledge.  
  > **username_5**: @username_6 the aspect of awareness is relevant, I agree. One way to naively put it, is when there is knowledge/awareness regarding the fact, that a specific knowledge is not available.  Humans, in the best case, are aware of their individual lack of knowledge. We have some sort of table of content about things we know. We also know that we may have heard something, but never thought it through ourselves.  ChatGPT and other AI models store and recombine/associate.  
  > **username_8**: So interesting comments. Knowledge about facts, and knowledge about how to check new facts against our knowledge base. How to expand our table of contents through valid reasoning.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2022-12-14. Score: 15
  
  ChatGPT and other GPT-based machine learning models don't actually know anything in the sense you're thinking of. ChatGPT is a distant descendant of [Markov chain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain) text generators such as [Dissociated Press](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociated_press), and works by predicting what is most likely to follow a given sequence of text.
  
  So, when you ask it "Does username_16 know how to play chess?", what you're actually getting is the answer to the question "What is most likely to follow the phrase 'Does username_16 know how to play chess?'?"
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_9**: @Shub, the same way it answers questions.  Code isn't fundamentally any different from written language, and ChatGPT tends to make the same sorts of mistakes, producing code that is syntactically correct but semantically nonsensical.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2022-12-16. Score: 2
  
  The original question asked about "**an AI**" generally, yet most of the responses here focus on username_16's ChatGPT specifically. Seems like the answer would depend on the specific type of AI being used, not limited to just large language model-based chatbots, but considering other types of knowledge representation systems more generally.
  
  Not being an AI expert, I can't speak to this, but here's some good background reading: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning>
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2023-04-21. Score: 0
  
  I agree with most the former answers here, and apologies I don't have high enough points yet to comment so had to do this as an answer, but I believe due to inaccuracies, lack of fact checking capabilities etc... in the data its trained on up to 2021 currently at the time of writing, fine tuning via it's API has become popular I believe. Although you were mainly asking about ChatGPT itself I felt its a good idea to consider it's API as part of that which is just as easily accessible, I am currently learning how to fine tune it my self for more specific and accurate results.
  
  So in respect of the question: **Shouldn't the AI reject my question on a subject which is not in its known criteria?
  It does so for many other subjects.**
  
  It can possibly do this if you train / fine tune it another way on the API, but for the latter part, using the normal ChatGPT and ChatGPT plus user interface part of the site, not the API the AI mostly will not reject your question unless it breaches ethical and moral constructs, which I think is also another important aspect to consider when gaining information from ChatGPT.
  
  
  ---
  
  