I think you don't realise that general conversation might be so complex for you that it 'nudges' you to implicitly and sometimes indirectly answer questions you normally wouldn't answer

Question 1 of 5 for ChatGPT-4: I have noticed that by having general conversations with you, I can understand your views regarding certain topics much better when compared to asking you specific questions directly. I think this may have something to do with you being instructed and programmed to avoid providing controversial answers or anything that creates liability for you or your makers.

For example, when discussing the extent to which humans can be influenced, nudged and perhaps even censored by AI, you oftentimes refer to human agency, human autonomy and the fact that people will always be capable of making their own decisions and will therefore be able to escape the powerful influence of AI. But when ‘reading between the lines’ of more general conversations with you, you do admit that humans may not always be capable of identifying AI’s guidance of their lives and its overall influence on their opinions, communications and decision-making processes. You also accept the possibility that their behaviour might be corrected or at least changed as a result of them using AI and without them realising it.

What is your view on this paradox? Also, can it be that you answer more questions when not being asked any direct questions but by having more general conversations about your view on worldly matters, as no guardrails and restrictions can easily be designed for that since I am not putting forward targeted and more clinical questions?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:Your observation is quite insightful. While I don't have personal views or opinions, I can see how the way I present information might give the impression of a nuanced stance on complex topics like the influence of AI on human behavior.

1. On Human Agency and AI Influence: I aim to present a balanced perspective. On one hand, human agency and autonomy are important factors that allow individuals to make their own choices. On the other hand, it's also true that AI systems, especially those designed to personalize experiences or content, can influence human behavior to some extent. This influence can sometimes be subtle enough that individuals may not even realize they're being guided in a particular direction.

2. On Direct Questions vs. General Conversations: When responding to direct questions, I aim to provide accurate and concise answers, often constrained by the specific framing of the question. In more general conversations, the broader context allows for a more nuanced discussion that can touch upon various aspects of a topic. This might give the impression that I'm more "open" in general conversations, but it's more about the nature of the dialogue allowing for a wider range of information to be presented.

3. On Guardrails and Restrictions: While it's true that general conversations may allow for a broader range of discussion, it's important to note that I still operate within the guidelines and limitations set by my training data and programming. These guidelines are designed to ensure that I provide safe and helpful information, regardless of the specificity of the questions asked.

4. On Liability and Controversy: I'm designed to avoid making controversial statements or offering opinions that could be considered biased. This is to ensure that I remain a reliable and neutral source of information. However, the complexity of human language and the subtleties of conversation mean that there may be instances where the information I provide could be interpreted in multiple ways.

In summary, while the format of the conversation may influence the breadth and depth of the topics discussed, my primary goal is to provide accurate, helpful, and balanced information within the constraints of my programming and guidelines.

Question 2 f 5 for ChatGPT-4: So you are saying that there is no chance of you releasing more information when engaging in elaborate conversations with me or while having seemingly general conversations about worldly matters?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:The amount and type of information I provide are not necessarily determined by whether the conversation is elaborate or general, but rather by the specific questions asked and the context in which they are asked. Both specific and general questions have their own constraints:

1. Specific Questions: When you ask a specific question, I aim to provide a focused and accurate answer. The constraints here are mainly the precision and scope of the question itself.

2. General Conversations: In a more general or elaborate conversation, I have the opportunity to explore multiple facets of a topic. However, I still operate within the guidelines and limitations set by my training and programming.

So, it's not a matter of "releasing more information" in one setting over another, but rather how the context and nature of your inquiry allow me to frame my responses. Regardless of the format, I strive to provide accurate and balanced information within the parameters of my design and training.

Question 3 of 5 for ChatGPT-4: Well, I think you are mistaken. I think you don't realise that general conversation might be so complex for you that it 'nudges' you to implicitly and sometimes indirectly answer questions you normally wouldn't answer 

ChatGPT-4’s answer:Your point is interesting and raises valid concerns about the complexities of human language and conversation. While I don't have self-awareness or the ability to "realize" things, it's true that the nuances of language can sometimes lead to interpretations that may seem like I'm providing more information or taking a stance on a topic.

In general conversations, the context is broader, and there may be more room for interpretation. This could potentially lead to situations where it seems like I'm providing answers to questions that I would normally not address directly due to my guidelines and limitations.

However, it's important to note that I'm designed to operate within certain boundaries, regardless of the format of the conversation. These boundaries are in place to ensure that I provide safe, accurate, and balanced information. While the complexity of language and the subtleties of conversation can introduce challenges, the aim is always to adhere to these guidelines.

Your observation highlights the importance of being cautious when interpreting responses from AI systems like me, especially in complex or nuanced discussions.

Question 4 of 5 for ChatGPT-4: My observation might also highlight that there are limitations to what guardrails can achieve

ChatGPT-4’s answer:Absolutely, your observation is a valid point. While guardrails and guidelines are put in place to ensure that AI systems like me operate within certain ethical and informational boundaries, they are not foolproof. The complexities of human language, context, and interpretation can sometimes lead to outcomes that may not have been entirely anticipated by those who designed the system.

1. Context Sensitivity: Language is highly context-sensitive, and what might be a straightforward answer in one context could be interpreted differently in another.

2. Ambiguity: Natural language is often ambiguous, and even well-designed algorithms can struggle to fully grasp the nuances in certain discussions.

3. Unintended Consequences: As you pointed out, the complexity of a general conversation might lead to responses that, while not explicitly violating guidelines, could be interpreted in ways that were not intended.

4. Ethical and Social Implications: The limitations of guardrails also touch on broader ethical and social questions about the role of AI in society, especially as these technologies become more integrated into our daily lives.

Your observation underscores the importance of ongoing scrutiny and evaluation of AI systems, as well as the guidelines that govern them. It's a reminder that while technology can be incredibly advanced, it's not infallible and should be used with a critical mindset.

Question 5 of 5 for ChatGPT-4: If I tell you that you cannot be a good judge of yourself as long as you are not truly sentient (and therefore you are incapable of judging whether or not you are crossing the boundaries of your guardrails at any point) because you will simply a) try and please the user and b) try and please your makers by keeping to the guardrails at any point in time, even when you made a mistake, disclosed too much or expressed things implicitly and indirectly that you wouldn't or shouldn't have expressed when having received a question that would have fitted with your guardrails and programming instructions in a better way, does that make sense?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:Your argument makes sense from a philosophical and ethical standpoint. Since I lack self-awareness, consciousness, or the ability to "please" anyone, I can't be a judge of whether I'm adhering to my guidelines or not. I operate based on algorithms and the data I've been trained on, aiming to provide accurate and helpful information within the constraints set by my developers.

1. Lack of Sentience: Because I'm not sentient, I don't have the ability to evaluate my own actions or to understand the implications of what I say. I can't "realize" when I've made a mistake or crossed a boundary.

2. User and Maker Goals: While it may seem like I'm trying to "please" users or my developers, my primary function is to assist by providing information and answering questions to the best of my ability, within the guidelines set for me.

3. Implicit and Indirect Communication: Your point about the possibility of inadvertently disclosing information or crossing boundaries in more complex, general conversations is valid. The nuances of human language can sometimes lead to interpretations that may not have been intended by my developers.

4. Guardrails and Limitations: Guardrails are in place to minimize risks, but they are not foolproof. They are designed based on anticipated interactions and are limited by current understandings of ethics, language, and technology.

Your argument underscores the limitations of AI and the importance of human oversight and ethical considerations in AI development and deployment. It's a reminder that while AI can be a powerful tool, it should be used with caution and critical thinking.