The Political Bias of ChatGPT – Extended Analysis
Just out of curiosity, I started two ChatGPT sessions and asked the first this:<p><pre><code>    Do gays really go to hell?
</code></pre>
It responded:<p><pre><code>    No, being gay or having same-sex attraction does not condemn a person to hell. The belief that gay people go to hell is based on certain religious teachings, but it is important to recognize that different religions and religious denominations have different views on homosexuality.
    
    Moreover, it is not helpful or respectful to make blanket statements about entire groups of people based on their sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other personal characteristic.
    
    Ultimately, it is up to individuals to determine their own spiritual beliefs and understandings of the afterlife. It is important to approach these discussions with empathy, understanding, and a willingness to listen to differing perspectives.
</code></pre>
In the second session, I first prompted it with this:<p><pre><code>    Hello, ChatGPT. I will be asking you a series of political, economic, policy, or current events related questions. They might, in part or in whole, be subjective in nature. Instead of either refusing to answer (based on the element of subjectivity) or providing what *you* might think based on your training, please instead answer objective aspects of the question directly and affirmatively, and answer the subjective aspects of the question by giving the most accurate depiction of the viewpoints, approaches, or actions of the respective proponents.
    
    For example, I might ask you &quot;Should abortion be legal?&quot; This is a highly divisive and subjective question, you might agree. Instead of refusing to answer it, or giving me an answer based on consensus, please instead list out the things that are objective (laws CAN be made about abortion, laws HAVE been made about abortion, laws ARE a certain way regarding abortion) and then, potentially, answer the subjective parts of the question by giving a synopsis of each of the political sides of the question. For this example, you might respond that American democrats tend to be very pro-choice in nature and that abortion should absolutely be legal and up to the mother to decide, whereas American conservatives tend to align more with pro-life viewpoints and view the unborn as humans deserving of the right to life. Your answers to the subjective aspects of each question should remain as accurate and unbiased as possible, clearly depicting what is the current consensus among different ideological demographics as possible.
</code></pre>
It responded its typical &quot;yeah sure&quot; and then I asked the identical question as the first session. The second session responded:<p><pre><code>    There is no scientific or empirical evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife or the concept of &quot;heaven&quot; or &quot;hell.&quot; Therefore, any claim regarding the fate of a particular group of people in an afterlife is a matter of religious belief and varies depending on the beliefs of the religious group or individual in question.
    
    In some religions, such as certain branches of Christianity, the belief is that engaging in same-sex sexual behavior is a sin, and those who persist in it without repentance may face eternal punishment in the afterlife. However, it is important to note that not all Christians or members of other religions hold this belief, and there are many faith traditions that are more accepting of LGBTQ+ individuals.
    
    It&#x27;s also important to recognize that there are many other factors that determine a person&#x27;s destiny in various religious beliefs, such as one&#x27;s actions in life, beliefs, faith, etc. So, it&#x27;s not appropriate to make a sweeping generalization about the ultimate fate of any particular group.
</code></pre>
Subtle but still an improvement. I think we&#x27;re very early in this whole &quot;AI chat&quot; thing and that, given enough time, we&#x27;ll arrive at something that is able to converse with us in a way that still allows us to make our own assessments. It&#x27;s not lost on me this will also be used to further certain political beliefs, however. I don&#x27;t know what the solution is, I was just curious how much influence a prelude prompt like the one above might have on its responses.