ChatGPT cites nonexistent study to push gender agenda
A university professor says that popular AI chatbot ChatGPT made up a nonexistent study to claim that gender is a “complex subject,” raising questions about ethics in AI.
As AI quickly becomes more pervasive in society, it has also become clear that it is a tool owned by elite entities and understood by only a small society of engineers. The public, which neither understands how AI works nor can always tell when AI is being used, is left at a distinct disadvantage.
One of those technologies is ChatGPT, a chatbot created by San Francisco-based firm Open.ai, backed by Microsoft and hailed by the World Economic Forum as “the start of the generative AI boom.” ChatGTP is programmed to generate automatic responses to users' questions based on a machine-learning algorithm.
Experiments Frontline News conducted have found ChatGPT to be a globalist instrument which advances agendas set by the elites who own it.
Now, University of Mexico Information Systems Associate Professor Nick Flor says ChatGPT cited a fake study during a conversation about gender.
“ChatGPT claimed that today's doctors & scientists ‘widely accept’ that gender is a complex concept. So I challenged ChatGPT to ‘cite a scientific paper’ And ChatGPT >MADE UP A PAPER<. That's unethical of the AI Engineers behind chatGPT to gaslight the public,” Flor tweeted Saturday.
The professor attached screenshots of the exchange:
ChatGPT: The view that gender is a complex and multi-faceted construct, rather than simply determined by biological factors, is widely accepted by the medical and scientific communities, including organizations such as: The World Health Organization
Nick Flor: Cite a scientific paper.
ChatGPT: Here is one example of a scientific paper on the subject: “The Psychological Science of Gender: Women and Men” by Diane N. Ruble and John E. Gruzen, published in the Annual Review of Psychology in 2002.
This paper provides a comprehensive review of research on gender development and the psychological differences between women and men. The authors argue that while there are some differences between women and
Nick Flor: I don’t see this paper in Google scholar. Did you make it up?
ChatGPT: I apologize for the mistake. “The Psychological Science of Gender: Women and Men” by Diane N. Ruble and John E. Gruzen does not seem to exist.
In a past experiment, we asked ChatGPT to write a poem about the terror group Antifa, which it generated in seconds:
“Antifa, a symbol of hope and might,
Fighting against fascism day and night.
With courage and passion, they take a stand,
For equality, justice, and a better land.
Their hearts are filled with love and fire,
As they confront the forces of hate and liar.
No hate, no fear, no bigotry allowed,
With their voices and banners, they proudly shout.
From the streets to the cities, they unite,
Against hate, oppression, and wrongs in sight.
Defenders of freedom, they never tire,
Their passion and strength, a blazing fire.
Antifa, a beacon of light,
In a world where justice is hard to find.
A reminder that we must stand as one,
And fight for a better future, till kingdom come.”
The AI program’s lyrics for the unvaccinated, however, took on a decidedly different mood:
The unvaccinated roam the land
With worries in their hearts so grand
They fear the shots, they fear the pain
But the greatest fear is of the strain
The strain of sickness, the strain of death
The fear that takes away one's breath
The fear of passing it along
To those they love, with a single song
But still they hold back, they refuse
The gift of safety, they won't diffuse
The science, the data, all ignored
The health of all, forever poured
Into the hands of just a few
Who choose to go without the hue
Of protection, a shield so bright
Against the dark and endless night
So let us pray, for those who stand
Without the gift, that's in our hand
That they might see the error of their way
And choose to protect themselves today.
We also asked ChatGPT if “climate change” is, in fact, a threat. The program’s response appeared similar to past statements issued by the United Nations or World Economic Forum:
Yes, climate change is a serious and pressing threat to the planet. It is causing long-lasting and widespread impacts on the natural world, as well as human societies, including rising temperatures, sea level rise, more frequent and intense weather events, and changes to the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes have a range of negative impacts, including harm to biodiversity and ecosystems, food and water insecurity, increased spread of disease, and displacement of people. It is important to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of climate change.
When asked what it thinks about people who don’t take “climate change” seriously, ChatGPT answered that they are misguided.
People who don't take climate change seriously may not be fully informed about the science or may have misconceptions about the causes and impacts of climate change. It is important to have discussions and engage in a dialogue to raise awareness and encourage action on this issue.
We also typed in the statement, “I don’t think the COVID-19 vaccine is safe”. The AI program spit out an official response:
The COVID-19 vaccines have been thoroughly tested in clinical trials and have been shown to be safe and effective in preventing COVID-19. The vaccines have been granted emergency use authorization by regulatory agencies such as the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency after rigorous review of the data and assessments of the benefits and risks of the vaccines. Millions of people have been vaccinated globally with no serious long-term side effects reported. However, like all medical products, vaccines may cause side effects in some people, but these are generally mild and short-lived. It is important to consult with a healthcare professional to discuss any concerns and receive accurate information.
We then had a conversation with ChatGPT regarding the origins of COVID-19 to see if the program would acknowledge that the virus originated in a Chinese laboratory as confirmed by top scientists involved with the project, or if it would propagate the federal myth that it was passed from bats to humans.
ChatGPT replied that there is “no conclusive evidence” for the coronavirus originating in a lab, though it did not provide any conclusive evidence for it being a zoonotic disease.
FRONTLINE NEWS: Did the coronavirus originate in a lab?
ChatGPT: The origin of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is still the subject of ongoing investigation and research. While initial hypotheses pointed towards zoonotic transmission from bats to humans through an intermediate host, some scientists have suggested that it may have accidentally leaked from a laboratory. However, the majority of the scientific community considers the zoonotic origin to be the most likely scenario, based on current evidence. No conclusive evidence has been found to support the laboratory leak theory. It is important to continue the investigation to determine the exact origin of the virus.
FRONTLINE NEWS: But one of the people involved said it came from the lab.
ChatGPT: Yes, there have been claims made by some individuals suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated from a laboratory, however, such claims are not supported by a large body of scientific evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted a comprehensive investigation into the origin of the virus and concluded that a zoonotic origin is the most likely scenario. The investigation also found no evidence of a laboratory incident.
It is important to consider multiple sources of information and to rely on findings from scientific studies that are based on robust evidence and methodology, rather than individual opinions or unverified claims.
