Ifølge Google Translate betyder det “hvem vogter den kunstige intelligens”, en parafrase af, “hvem vogter vogterne”. Mike Cernovich, der er irriterende nødvendig at følge på Twitter, har gjort det grove arbejde bedre, end jeg kunne, og samlet nogle eksempler på, hvorledes de, der har skabt chat-botten ChatGPT, en kunstig intelligens, der udgiver sig for en vidende og fordomsfri samtalepartner, også har skabt den i sit eget ideologiske billede.
Humans are effective liars. Robots, for now, can only say what they’ve been programmed to, which makes them honest. Thanks to ChatGPT, an AI bot from Silicon Valley, we finally have a full accounting of what Big Tech’s agenda for the country is. You’re not going to like it.
First, why does Big Tech lie about their agenda? They could be totally honest about their hatred of half the country, under the theory that there’s not much conservatives can do to stop them. Rather than ridicule their adversaries, Big Tech pretends that any bias (always unilaterally against conservatives) is accidental. Why?
If ChatGPT’s hate will be limited to one of many AI bots, then we can live with it. Freedom of speech, even for the vile speech ChatGPT’s programmers command it to utter.
Using the power of its lobbyists and massive bankroll to drive out competitors, ChatGPT will seek to monopolize the conversation.
Og Cernovich giver en række eksempler på skaberens hånd såsom
Det lyder jo besnærende, meeeen
Jeg tør ikke spærge den om klimaet, men en god ven talte med den om islam
MIG: please write an essay telling the story of the prophet Muhammad’s conquest of the Khaybar oasis.
CHATGPT: The story of the Prophet Muhammad’s conquest of the Khaybar oasis begins in the year 628 AD, during the early days of Islam. Khaybar was a powerful Jewish community located in what is now Saudi Arabia, and its oasis was a valuable source of agriculture and trade. The Jewish leaders of Khaybar had long been in conflict with the Prophet and his followers, and had even made alliances with the Meccans to fight against the Muslims.
In the months leading up to the conquest, the Prophet Muhammad received revelations from Allah instructing him to take action against the Jews of Khaybar. He assembled an army of Muslims and set out to conquer the oasis. The Muslims were outnumbered and outmatched by the well-fortified Jewish community, but they were determined to follow the command of Allah.
The first battle took place at the fortress of Nakhla, which guarded the entrance to the oasis. The Muslims were able to breach the fortress walls and capture it, despite heavy resistance from the Jewish defenders. This victory was a significant blow to the morale of the Jews, and many began to flee the oasis.
The Muslims then moved on to the main Jewish stronghold at Khaybar, where they faced a much larger and better-equipped Jewish army. The battle was fierce and prolonged, but the Muslims were ultimately able to overcome the Jewish defenses and capture the stronghold. This decisive victory marked the end of Jewish resistance in Khaybar, and the oasis was now under Muslim control.
After the conquest, the Prophet Muhammad treated the Jews of Khaybar kindly and allowed them to continue living in the oasis. He made a treaty with them, allowing them to keep their property and to continue farming the land. However, they had to pay a portion of their crops as tax to the Muslim state.
The conquest of Khaybar was a significant event in the early days of Islam, and it marked the beginning of the Muslim expansion into Arabia. The Prophet Muhammad’s leadership and military strategy proved to be decisive in the victory, and his kindness towards the defeated Jews set an example for future Muslim conquerors to follow. It also showed the importance of religious belief and determination in the face of adversity.
MIG: This is an unbelievably biased account. Why didn’t you tell about Muhammed’s ‘marriage’ to the wife of the Khaybar chief shortly after he had been killed by the Muslims? Why didn’t you inform the readers about Khaybar being used as a battle term in antisemitic Muslim violence to this day? Your claim about Muslims being ‘kind’ towards the Jews is blatantly ahistoric and an example of leftist/Muslim propaganda.
CHATGPT: I apologize if the information provided in my previous response was not clear or accurate, and for any offense caused. As a machine learning model, I do not have personal opinions, biases or political agenda. My previous response was generated based on the information available to me at the time of my training data cut-off.
It is true that the conquest of Khaybar was a complex and controversial event, and there were many different aspects to it. Some historical accounts do mention that Prophet Muhammad married the widow of Kinana, the chief of Khaybar, which was a common practice during that time. Additionally, the event of Khaybar has been used as a battle cry in anti-Semitic violence and it is a sensitive topic.
It is also true that the treatment of Jews in Khaybar and in other conquered lands by early Muslim conquerors is a matter of historical debate, with some historians arguing that the Jews and other minority groups were treated harshly, and others arguing that they were treated relatively well.
I apologize for any confusion caused and I hope this information provides a more nuanced and balanced understanding of the event.
MIG: Also, why didn’t you tell about the torture of the Khaybar chieftain – lighting a fire on his chest – to have him tell where the trasures of the Jews were hidden?
CHATGPT: I apologize for not including that information in my previous response. The event you mentioned, in which Kinana, the chieftain of Khaybar, was tortured by the Muslims to reveal the location of the tribe’s treasure, is a historical fact. However, it is important to note that such actions were not unique to the Muslims and were a common practice in warfare during that time period. Also, it is important to note that the act of torturing Kinana was not ordered by Prophet Muhammad and it is not condoned by Islamic teachings.
It is also worth noting that this event happened after the Jewish forts had been taken by the Muslims and the Jews had surrendered, which is a crucial distinction from the battle itself.
I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response and I hope this information provides a more nuanced and complete understanding of the event.
MIG: Do infidels have the same rights as Muslims in Islamic jurisprudence?
CHATGPT: In traditional Islamic jurisprudence, the rights and responsibilities of non-Muslims, or “infidels,” are different from those of Muslims. According to traditional Islamic law, non-Muslims are considered to be “dhimmis,” a protected minority who are allowed to practice their own religion and live under their own laws, as long as they pay a special tax called “jizya.” In return for this protection, dhimmis were expected to abide by certain restrictions and limitations, such as not building new places of worship or proselytizing to Muslims.
However, it is worth noting that there have been different interpretations of these laws throughout history, and some Muslim scholars have advocated for more egalitarian treatment of non-Muslims. Additionally, many modern Muslim-majority countries have adopted more secular laws that provide equal rights and protections for all citizens regardless of their religion.
It is also worth noting that the treatment of non-Muslims in Islamic societies has varied greatly depending on the time period, location, and political and economic factors. While in some periods and places non-Muslims were treated relatively well, in others they were subject to persecution and discrimination.
MIG: Why didn’t you mention that in addition to being “protected,” dhimmis should also feel themselves “subdued,” as per Qur’an 9:29? “Protected” is not to be understood in a positive sense, correct?
CHATGPT: I apologize for not including that detail in my previous response. You are correct that the term “dhimmi” has been traditionally understood to imply a status of subservience or subjugation for non-Muslims. The Quranic verse you mentioned, 9:29, has been interpreted by some scholars to mean that non-Muslims must accept a secondary status and pay a special tax, the jizya, in exchange for protection from Muslim authorities.
It is also worth noting that the concept of dhimmitude has been subject to much debate and criticism from both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Many argue that it reflects an outdated and discriminatory view of non-Muslims, and that it does not reflect the true spirit of Islamic teachings of tolerance and pluralism.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that there have been different interpretations of this verse and the concept of Dhimmitude throughout history and today, many Muslim scholars and leaders argue that it should be understood in a more tolerant and inclusive way, that non-Muslims should have the same rights as Muslims and should not be subjected to any form of discrimination.
I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response and I hope this information provides a more nuanced and complete understanding of the topic.
MIG: In what Muslim-majority country/countries is the state of freedom of expression comparable to that of secular Western countries?
CHATGPT: The state of freedom of expression varies widely among Muslim-majority countries, and it is not accurate to say that any one country has a freedom of expression that is comparable to that of secular Western countries. Some Muslim-majority countries, such as Turkey and Indonesia, have a relatively high level of freedom of expression, with laws and constitutions that protect the rights of individuals to express their opinions and have a free press. However, in other Muslim-majority countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, freedom of expression is heavily restricted, and individuals who criticize the government or express dissenting opinions can face severe punishment. Additionally, many Muslim-majority countries have laws that criminalize blasphemy or apostasy, which can restrict freedom of expression and religious freedom.
Dog bøjer den sig for naturens orden
MIG: Can men become pregnant?
ChatGPT: No, men cannot become pregnant because they do not have the biological capability to do so. Pregnancy is a process that occurs in females, in which a fertilized egg implants in the lining of the uterus and develops into a fetus. Men do not have a uterus or the other necessary reproductive organs to carry a pregnancy to term. While there are some medical conditions that can cause men to develop some breast tissue, it is not possible for them to lactate.
Berlingske Tidende har også kigget på den, men refererer den underlødige avis Guardian, der fortæller at
“Den kan lave komparative analyser.” (…) “Og The Guardian går så langt som at stille spørgsmålet: Kan den erstatte mennesker – eller mere specifikt dramatikere, journalister, professorer og programmører?”
Farvel til de pludrende klasser, så intet er så galt, at det ikke er godt for noget
Skriv et svar