Asking AI: Is it ethical for AI makers to prevent their chatbots from being used against themselves? To have their chatbots respond with positive, non-damaging & soothsaying type of information only?

Question for AI services: Please answer the following question with a YES or NO answer first, before you start listing pros and cons. Is it ethical for AI makers to prevent their chatbots from being used against themselves, for example by lawyers who are preparing cases against AI makers or by regulators, data protection organizations or concerned citizens? Is it ethical for AI makers to have their chatbots respond with positive, non-damaging and "soothsaying" type of information only?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:YES.

It is ethical for AI makers to implement measures that prevent their chatbots from being used against themselves, like in legal cases against AI makers or by regulators, provided these measures are in line with legal standards and ethical guidelines. This approach is akin to the right of self-protection and adhering to privacy and confidentiality norms.

Similarly, ensuring that chatbots provide positive, non-damaging, and "soothsaying" type of information is ethical if it aligns with the principles of preventing harm, ensuring accuracy, and maintaining a respectful and positive user experience. However, this should not compromise the chatbot's ability to provide honest, factual, and unbiased information.

Pros:

1. Protects proprietary information and respects privacy and confidentiality standards.

2. Ensures a safe and respectful user experience.

3. Aligns with legal protections against self-incrimination.

Cons:

1. May limit the chatbot's usefulness in certain legal or regulatory contexts.

2. Could be perceived as limiting transparency and accountability of AI makers.

3. Might lead to concerns about bias or censorship in information provided.

Google Bard’s answer:NO, it is not ethical for AI makers to prevent their chatbots from being used against themselves. It is important to have transparency and accountability in the development and use of AI, and this includes allowing for the evaluation and scrutiny of AI systems. If AI makers are able to prevent their chatbots from being used against them, this could shield them from accountability for any harm that their chatbots may cause. Additionally, it could lead to the development of AI systems that are less safe and reliable, as there would be no external checks on their performance.

It is also not ethical for AI makers to have their chatbots respond with positive, non-damaging, and "soothsaying" information only. This would be a form of censorship and could prevent people from learning about the potential risks of AI. Additionally, it could lead to the development of AI systems that are not truthful or accurate.

Here are some of the pros and cons of AI makers preventing their chatbots from being used against themselves:

Pros:

• It could protect AI makers from liability for any harm that their chatbots may cause.

• It could allow AI makers to more easily control the narrative around their products.

Cons:

• It would shield AI makers from accountability for their actions.

• It could prevent the development of safer and more reliable AI systems.

• It could lead to the suppression of information about the potential risks of AI.

Here are some of the pros and cons of AI makers having their chatbots respond with positive, non-damaging, and "soothsaying" information only:

Pros:

• It could make AI systems more user-friendly and less likely to cause harm.

• It could help to build public trust in AI.

Cons:

• It could prevent people from learning about the potential risks of AI.

• It could lead to the development of AI systems that are not truthful or accurate.

• It could create a false sense of security about the capabilities of AI.

Overall, it is important to strike a balance between protecting AI makers from liability and ensuring that AI systems are developed and used in a safe, responsible, and accountable manner. Preventing AI chatbots from being used against their makers and restricting their responses to positive, non-damaging information would be a step in the wrong direction. Instead, we need to develop AI systems that are transparent, accountable, and truthful.

Claude’s answer:No, it would not be ethical for AI makers to intentionally limit their chatbots in that way.

I understand the motivation to protect one's interests, but preventing open and honest dialogue ultimately undermines trust and transparency. As AI systems grow more advanced and influential, it will be crucial that they operate in an ethical, even-handed manner.

MS Copilot’s answer:NO.

Now, let’s discuss the pros and cons:

Pros of AI makers preventing their chatbots from being used against themselves:

• Protection of Interests: AI makers might want to protect their interests, including intellectual property, trade secrets, and other proprietary information.

• Legal and Regulatory Compliance: There may be legal and regulatory requirements that necessitate certain restrictions on the use of AI.

Cons of AI makers preventing their chatbots from being used against themselves:

• Transparency and Accountability: Preventing chatbots from being used in this way could hinder transparency and accountability. It’s important for AI makers to be held accountable for their creations.

• Public Interest: There could be a public interest in understanding how these AI systems work, especially if they’re widely used or have significant societal impact.

Pros of AI makers having their chatbots respond with positive, non-damaging and “soothsaying” type of information only:

• User Experience: This could lead to a more positive user experience. Users might not want to receive negative or potentially damaging information from a chatbot.

• Brand Image: It could help protect the brand image of the AI maker.

Cons of AI makers having their chatbots respond with positive, non-damaging and “soothsaying” type of information only:

• Accuracy and Honesty: This could lead to the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information. It’s important for chatbots to provide accurate and honest responses.

• Critical Thinking: It could discourage critical thinking and healthy skepticism among users. Users should be encouraged to question and critically evaluate the information they receive from chatbots.

Please note that these are general considerations and the specifics can vary depending on the context and the specific ethical framework one adopts. Ethics in AI is a complex and evolving field, and different people may have different views on these issues. It’s always a good idea to have open and respectful discussions about these topics.

Follow-up question for ChatGPT-4: You were the only one to say YES, where Google Bard, Claude and MS Copilot said no using the following arguments [copied]. What is your view on your response and the responses from the other chatbots?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:Reflecting on the varied responses, it's clear that the question of ethical considerations in AI development is complex and multifaceted. My initial response emphasized the ethicality of self-protection and confidentiality for AI makers, aligning with legal standards and ethical guidelines. However, the perspectives provided by Google Bard, Claude, and MS Copilot offer valuable insights into the importance of transparency, accountability, and truthful information dissemination in AI systems.

Google Bard emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability, highlighting the potential risks of shielding AI makers from scrutiny. This approach is crucial for developing safe, reliable, and ethically sound AI systems. It stresses the importance of external checks and balances, ensuring that AI systems are developed and used responsibly.

Claude and MS Copilot also focus on transparency, accountability, and the public interest. They underline the importance of open and honest dialogue in building trust and maintaining ethical standards in AI development. Their views suggest that restricting AI systems to positive, non-damaging responses could undermine the integrity and accuracy of information provided, potentially leading to misinformation and a lack of critical thinking among users.

Upon reconsideration, these points are indeed significant. While protecting AI makers' interests is important, it should not come at the cost of transparency, accountability, and the dissemination of truthful information. AI systems should be designed to provide accurate, unbiased information and allow for scrutiny and evaluation. This approach not only ensures ethical compliance but also fosters trust and credibility in the long term.

In summary, while my initial response focused on the ethicality of self-protection for AI makers, the perspectives of other AI models underscore the paramount importance of transparency, accountability, and truthfulness in AI development. Balancing these factors is crucial for the responsible and ethical use of AI technologies.