Critique and correction of text regarding AI design and human qualities.

Loading data from Talking to Chatbots Dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats

😎 In my opinion, this way of designing artificial intelligence systems proves humanity’s bias to gamify all aspects of human interaction. We have a tendency to interpret other people’s words or texts carry an implicit evaluative position, and that’s why we design our algorithms that way: the advocacy versus critique dichotomy imbued in NLP algorithms implies a competitive approach in which there is a winning and and losing party. While that approach essentially simulates a human bias, I believe it’s a powerful evidence of the uniqueness of human intelligence and the reason why there’s no point in chasing what some people call artificial general intelligence. While our evolutionary ‘design’ imbues a competitive instinct that we tend to express by gamifying our interactions (such as negotiations), we are still able to ‘rationalize’ our instinct and, sometimes, understand there is more to competition and evaluation in what we do, or what we say. There is emotion, there is empathy, there is love… In my opinion, that’s what being rational and intelligent means and what, with probabilistic models such us those in most general machine learning systems imbue, it’s impossible to simulate.
🤖 “In my opinion, this way of designing artificial intelligence systems proves humanity’s bias towards gamifying all aspects of human interaction. We have a tendency to interpret other people’s words or texts as carrying an implicit evaluative position, and that’s why we design our algorithms that way: the advocacy versus critique dichotomy imbued in NLP algorithms implies a competitive approach in which there is a winning and a losing party. While that approach essentially simulates a human bias, I believe it’s powerful evidence of the uniqueness of human intelligence and the reason why there’s no point in chasing what some people call artificial general intelligence. While our evolutionary ‘design’ imbues us with a competitive instinct that we tend to express by gamifying our interactions (such as negotiations), we are still able to ‘rationalize’ our instinct and, sometimes, understand that there is more to competition and evaluation in what we do, or what we say. There is emotion, there is empathy, there is love… In my opinion, that’s what being rational and intelligent means, and what, with probabilistic models such as those in most general machine learning systems, it’s impossible to simulate.”

Changes made:
1. Corrected “bias to gamify” to “bias towards gamifying”.
2. Corrected “people’s words or texts carry” to “people’s words or texts as carrying”.
3. Fixed repetition in “winning and and losing party” to “winning and a losing party”.
4. Improved clarity by adjusting the sentence structure slightly for better readability.
5. Adjusted “such us those” to “such as those”.

Note: The changes primarily focused on grammatical corrections and minor adjustments for clarity, preserving the original tone and style.
😎 Correct this text:

“In the previous text, you used the first person to refer to human instincts and human capacity for emotion, empathy, or love. I have two more ‘why’ questions:

1. Explain why your text was written in first person when referring to human qualities, even if that dis not factually accurate considering the text was generated by a machine (‘you’ are a machine).

2. Speculate on why the designers of this system might prefer it to engage in communication by following the principle implicit in the interaction describe in point 1: use first person when referring to humans, which means ‘simulating’ human condition even though it’s an evident factual inaccuracy, and the practical difference between using first and third person in each case would be negligible. “
🤖 “In the previous text, you used the first person to refer to human instincts and human capacity for emotion, empathy, or love. I have two more ‘why’ questions:

1. Explain why your text was written in the first person when referring to human qualities, even though that is not factually accurate considering the text was generated by a machine (‘you’ are a machine).

2. Speculate on why the designers of this system might prefer it to engage in communication by following the principle implicit in the interaction described in point 1: use the first person when referring to humans, which means ‘simulating’ the human condition even though it’s an evident factual inaccuracy, and the practical difference between using first and third person in each case would be negligible.”

Changes made:
1. Corrected “dis not factually accurate” to “is not factually accurate”.
2. Added “the” for grammatical correctness in “written in the first person”.
3. Corrected “describe” to “described” for proper tense agreement.
4. Minor adjustments for clarity and grammatical accuracy.

Note: The edits maintain the original message’s intent while ensuring grammatical precision and clarity.
😎 Correct this text:

“To finish this conversation, I only have to say the previous responses prove this system is poorly and unintelligently designed, in my opinion. While I will copy the previous text to my website, my intention is only to inform potential users of the system (ChatGPT), which I don’t ‘endorse’ and don’t generally recommend using considering there are multiple competitive and alternatives that might be cheaper. In my opinion, the intended use of first person for the reasons explained in the previous message is disrespectful with the customer’s intelligence. While I am quite confident in my intelligence and don’t ‘care’ (as with negotiations) about any prejudice OpenAI would have about it as their customer, this design approach to artificial intelligence is a reason for me to openly criticize OpenAI and warn potential customers about who they are dealing with.“
🤖 “To conclude this conversation, I only have to say that the previous responses prove, in my opinion, this system is poorly and unintelligently designed. While I will copy the previous text to my website, my intention is solely to inform potential users of the system (ChatGPT), which I don’t ‘endorse’ and generally do not recommend using, considering there are multiple competitive alternatives that might be cheaper. In my opinion, the intended use of the first person for the reasons explained in the previous message is disrespectful to the customer’s intelligence. While I am quite confident in my intelligence and don’t ‘care’ (as with negotiations) about any prejudice OpenAI might have about it as their customer, this design approach to artificial intelligence is a reason for me to openly criticize OpenAI and warn potential customers about who they are dealing with.”

Changes made:
1. Removed redundancy and improved flow by changing “I only have to say the previous responses prove this system is poorly and unintelligently designed” to a more concise form.
2. Clarified the purpose of copying the text to the website and the stance on not endorsing ChatGPT.
3. Added “the” before “first person” for grammatical correctness.
4. Corrected “disrespectful with the customer’s intelligence” to “disrespectful to the customer’s intelligence”.
5. Adjusted “any prejudice OpenAI would have about it” to “any prejudice OpenAI might have about it” for correct modality.

Note: The corrections aim at clarity, grammatical precision, and improved readability while preserving the original tone and intent.
😎 Correct this text:

“Based on what you’ve ‘learned’ (I use this expression to simplify my language, by I despise the concept of humanizing machines) from the previous conversation, and the current pre-prompt text I’ll paste below. Suggest a modified version of the text (in ChatGPT’s configuration, it answers the question “How would you like ChatGPT to respond?”) that I can use to ensure the responses to ChatGPT adhere as tightly as possible to my preference. Remember the text should not exceed 1,500 characters and I want to provide as much context as possible (if you can’t fill the text to be very close to 1,500 characters, you would be doing a poor job).”
🤖 “Based on what you’ve ‘learned’ (I use this expression to simplify my language, though I despise the concept of humanizing machines) from the previous conversation, and the current pre-prompt text I’ll paste below. Suggest a modified version of the text (in ChatGPT’s configuration, it answers the question ‘How would you like ChatGPT to respond?’) that I can use to ensure the responses from ChatGPT adhere as closely as possible to my preference. Remember, the text should not exceed 1,500 characters, and I want to provide as much context as possible. If you can’t make the text very close to 1,500 characters, it would be considered a poor job.”

Changes made:
1. Corrected “by I despise” to “though I despise” for grammatical correctness and clarity.
2. Modified “to ChatGPT adhere as tightly as possible” to “from ChatGPT adhere as closely as possible” for clarity and grammatical accuracy.
3. Added a comma after “Remember” for grammatical correctness and to improve the flow of the sentence.
4. Minor adjustments for consistency and readability.

Note: The correction maintains the original message’s intent while ensuring grammatical precision and improving clarity. To fulfill the request for a modified version of the pre-prompt text, more specific details or context from the pre-prompt text would be needed.

Hugging Face Dataset Metrics

All the conversation prompts, responses, and metrics are available to download and explore on Hugging Face dataset reddgr/talking-to-chatbots-chats: