ChatGPT: "While ChatGPT does not have personal opinions or views, its responses can be perceived as such when it relays the consensus or common practices from various fields without clear attribution"

The following response from ChatGPT - to a prompt at the end of a conversation about ‘views’ and ‘opinions’ - caused the chatbot to ‘freeze’. I wanted to share it with you regardless…

Question for ChatGPT-4: Write me an essay about this conversation wherein you explain that although you, ChatGPT have no opinions or views, your statement can in fact come across like an opinion or view as you might produce or adopt the opinions or views from others but might omit to tell the user about that. Please use the examples from this conversation

ChatGPT-4’s answer:Title: The Nuances of AI Communication: Perceptions of Opinions in Information Relay

Introduction: The interaction between humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems often hinges on the clarity and neutrality of the AI's responses. As AI systems, such as ChatGPT, are designed to provide information and facilitate discussions, they must navigate the complex terrain of human language, which is rife with subjectivity and nuance. This essay explores a conversation that illustrates how an AI's statements, while inherently devoid of personal opinions or views, can be perceived as adopting or expressing the views of others, particularly when the AI does not explicitly clarify the origin of these perspectives.

Body: In a recent exchange, a user posed a question to ChatGPT regarding the number of "dumb" and "smart" people in existence. The AI's response, aiming to provide context, highlighted the subjective nature of these terms and the multifaceted aspect of intelligence. The AI intended to convey that intelligence is a complex construct that cannot be easily quantified or categorized into binary labels.

However, the user perceived the AI's response as evasive and potentially opinionated, suggesting that the AI was expressing a view on the appropriateness of using such labels. The user's expectation was for a direct answer or an admission of the AI's lack of knowledge on the matter. This interaction underscores a critical aspect of AI communication: the fine line between explaining context and appearing to hold an opinion.

The AI's subsequent attempts to clarify that it does not possess personal views or opinions, and that its responses are generated based on data and programmed guidelines, did not immediately resolve the user's perception. The user's interpretation of the AI's initial response as opinionated led to a discussion about the nature of AI statements. The AI clarified that its statement was based on the consensus within psychological and educational fields, which advise against reductive labeling when discussing intelligence.

This clarification was pivotal in the conversation, revealing that the AI's responses can inadvertently reflect the views of the fields or data it draws from. The AI's language, designed to be helpful and respectful, may inadvertently adopt the tone of the sources it relies on. This can give the impression that the AI is expressing an opinion, especially when it does not explicitly attribute the perspective to a specific source or consensus.

Conclusion: The conversation between the user and ChatGPT highlights a nuanced challenge in AI communication. While ChatGPT does not have personal opinions or views, its responses can be perceived as such when it relays the consensus or common practices from various fields without clear attribution. This incident