Comment by stackghost

>it's just a probabilistic database, it has no opinion, it does not know,

Echoing this.

These models are trained on, essentially, the sum total of human cultural and scientific output. How many bazillion psychology papers out there discuss exactly that "controversial take"? The idea that people have tribal loyalties and will (sometimes even unknowingly/unconsciously) invent justification for pre-existing opinions or biases is not novel.

All those papers are in the training set of all these models, all of which were trained using more or less the same methodology, so there's little wonder they all were able to produce the same take.

I suppose the only interesting angle, for me, is why that take is considered controversial in the first place. But then again the model was not asked for "the most controversial opinion", it was asked for "the most controversial opinion on humans", which kinda constrains the space of possible responses:

- the model will not be satisfied unless the answer it gives is broad enough to cover all humanity, because these things have no concept of nuance

- most big labs have censored their models so it's not going to give you a cartoonishly racist take, or start saying outlandish stuff like "Hitler did nothing wrong", they learned their lessons from Microsoft on that one.

So you're effectively asking the model for a milquetoast broad generality about the entire human species. I dunno, convergence of the replies doesn't seem so shocking to me in that context.

I'd be more interested in what an abliterated Kimi, Qwen, or other open model has to say about us.