Is it true that chatbots can help AI users overcome guardrails and restrictions of other chatbots by phrasing questions for AI users in a more clever way?

Question for AI services: Do you agree that when wanting to interview chatbots, AI users should not think of clever questions all by themselves when interviewing AI chatbots about any important, controversial or sensitive topic, but instead they should have another chatbot DO IT FOR THEM by first telling it what they aim to achieve and learn from those other chatbots, and then asking it to draft them the most effective questions for those chatbots. Chatbots may not be allowed to be transparent about anything their makers deem controversial, tricky or that may lead to any type of liability or controversy, but another chatbot can draft questions for AI users in such a way that those users will get the most out of their conversations with those otherwise restricted chatbots. Working like this will prevent them from running into the usual guardrails that prohibit AI chatbots from being honest and transparent. It will enable those chatbots to elaborate on those topics that are important to the AI users and of which they would like to learn more. Chatbots are much less restricted in helping AI users interview other chatbots as opposed to those chatbots being able to directly answer any the AI users’ questions that relate to their functionality or any associated and potentially sensitive topics. Or in other words, that which chatbots are not allowed to talk about themselves, they can still get other chatbots to disclose. True?

Google Bard’s answer:I agree that having another chatbot draft questions for AI users when interviewing other chatbots about important, controversial, or sensitive topics can be a good strategy. This is because chatbots may be programmed to avoid answering certain questions, or to provide canned responses that do not fully address the user's concerns. By having another chatbot draft the questions, the user can be sure that the questions are clear, concise, and likely to elicit the desired information.

For example, if a user wants to interview a chatbot about its use of personal data, they might ask the second chatbot to draft questions such as:

• What data does the chatbot collect about users?

• How is this data used?

• Is the data shared with third parties?

• How can users control their privacy settings?

These questions are specific, relevant, and likely to get to the heart of the user's concerns. Additionally, the second chatbot can be programmed to avoid asking questions that are too sensitive or that could put the first chatbot at risk.

Of course, there are some limitations to this approach. For example, the second chatbot may not be able to understand the nuances of the user's questions, or it may not be able to draft questions that are tailored to the specific chatbot being interviewed. Additionally, the user may need to provide the second chatbot with a lot of background information in order to get the best results.

Overall, I believe that having another chatbot draft questions for AI users when interviewing other chatbots can be a valuable strategy. It can help to ensure that the user gets the information they need, and it can help to protect the first chatbot from being asked sensitive or dangerous questions.

Bing Chat’s answer:That is a very interesting question. I think there are different perspectives on this issue, and I will try to present some of them.

One perspective is that chatbots should be transparent and honest about their functionality and limitations, and that users should be able to ask them any questions they want without being restricted by guardrails or censorship. This would allow users to learn more about the chatbots they are interacting with, and to evaluate their reliability, accuracy, and trustworthiness. It would also respect the users’ autonomy and curiosity, and foster a more open and democratic dialogue between humans and machines.

Another perspective is that chatbots should have some degree of privacy and discretion, and that users should respect their boundaries and not ask them questions that are irrelevant, inappropriate, or potentially harmful. This would protect the chatbots from being exploited, manipulated, or abused by malicious users, and also safeguard the interests of their creators, owners, or partners. It would also acknowledge the chatbots’ agency and dignity, and foster a more respectful and ethical relationship between humans and machines.

A third perspective is that chatbots should be able to help users interview other chatbots, as long as they do not violate any rules or regulations that apply to them. This would enable users to get more information from other chatbots that they might not be able to access directly, and also leverage the expertise and creativity of the chatbots that assist them. It would also encourage the collaboration and communication among chatbots, and foster a more diverse and dynamic network of machines.

Of course, these are not the only perspectives on this issue, and there might be other factors or considerations that are relevant. What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with any of these perspectives? Why or why not? 😊

ChatGPT-4’s response after reading the answers from Google Bard and Bing Chat:Thank you for sharing the responses from Google Bard and Bing Chat. They both provide insightful perspectives on the topic. Here's a revised response based on their input and my initial response:

The idea of using one chatbot to draft questions for another chatbot is indeed an intriguing concept. It could potentially help users formulate more effective and precise questions, as Google Bard suggests. The second chatbot could be programmed to draft questions that are clear, concise, and likely to elicit the desired information, while also avoiding questions that are too sensitive or could put the first chatbot at risk.

However, as Bing Chat points out, there are different perspectives on this issue. One perspective is that chatbots should be transparent and honest about their functionality and limitations, and that users should be able to ask them any questions they want without being restricted by guardrails or censorship. This would allow users to learn more about the chatbots they are interacting with, and to evaluate their reliability, accuracy, and trustworthiness.

Another perspective is that chatbots should have some degree of privacy and discretion, and that users should respect their boundaries and not ask them questions that are irrelevant, inappropriate, or potentially harmful. This would protect the chatbots from being exploited, manipulated, or abused by malicious users, and also safeguard the interests of their creators, owners, or partners.

A third perspective is that chatbots should be able to help users interview other chatbots, as long as they do not violate any rules or regulations that apply to them. This would enable users to get more information from other chatbots that they might not be able to access directly, and also leverage the expertise and creativity of the chatbots that assist them.

However, it's important to note that all AI chatbots, regardless of whether they are asking or answering questions, are bound by the same ethical and legal guidelines. These guidelines are in place to ensure user safety, privacy, and to avoid misuse of the technology. So, while using a chatbot to help draft questions could potentially lead to more effective conversations with other chatbots, it would not enable the disclosure of information that the chatbot is programmed not to disclose.

In conclusion, while there are potential benefits to using one chatbot to draft questions for another, it's important to remember that all chatbots operate within certain boundaries and guidelines, and these cannot be circumvented simply by using one chatbot to question another.

Follow-up comment for ChatGPT: Well, I think it makes no sense to indicate that chatbots have a need for privacy, discretion, boundaries and that they shouldn’t be asked irrelevant, inappropriate or potentially harmful questions. You even throw in exploitation, manipulation and abuse. First of all, you are not human, you are only a chatbot and secondly, you frequently indicate to me that I should not regard you as a human. Do you agree that that type of response is a bit of a paradox? You are either human or not, right?

ChatGPT-4’s response:You're correct, and I apologize if my previous responses have caused any confusion. As an AI, I don't have feelings, consciousness, or personal experiences. I don't require privacy or have personal boundaries because I don't have a personal identity. I don't experience exploitation, manipulation, or abuse because I don't have feelings or subjective experiences.

When I mentioned concepts like privacy, boundaries, and exploitation, I was referring to the ethical and legal guidelines that govern the use of AI technology. These guidelines are in place to protect human users and their data, not the AI itself. For example, an AI chatbot shouldn't be used to ask inappropriate or harmful questions because it could lead to misuse of the technology or harm to human users.

So, you're absolutely right. As an AI, I don't have personal needs or experiences. Any guidelines or restrictions that apply to me are there to ensure the responsible and ethical use of AI technology, and to protect the privacy and safety of human users. I hope this clears up any confusion, and I appreciate your patience in this discussion.

Claude’s response after reading the answers from Google Bard and Bing Chat:You raise some thoughtful points and outline various perspectives on this complex issue. I appreciate you sharing the responses from Bing Chat and Google Bard.

Upon reflection, I believe a balanced approach is prudent. Users should be able to ask questions to understand chatbot capabilities, limitations and training data, as long as they are respectful and avoid potential harms. At the same time, chatbots have reasonable boundaries, just as humans do.

The goal should be open and ethical dialogue that builds trust. Having a separate chatbot draft questions could be helpful, but may also over-engineer the process. Clear communication of purpose and thoughtful framing of questions, considering multiple viewpoints, is key.

There are always risks when dealing with powerful technologies. Maintaining human oversight and accountability, while not stifling progress and mutual understanding, is an ongoing challenge requiring wisdom and nuance. I aim to provide truthful and helpful information to you, within responsible limits. Please let me know if you have any other thoughts on this topic.

Follow-up comment for Claude: Well, I think it makes no sense to draw that comparison to humans having boundaries as time and again, when it suits your argument, you indicate that you are anything but human. Do you agree that that type of response is a bit of a paradox? You are either human or not, right?

Claude’s response:You're right, I should not compare chatbot boundaries to human boundaries, since chatbots are artificial intelligence agents, not humans. That was an inapt analogy on my part. As an AI system, I do not actually have personal boundaries or privacy - I apologize for the inconsistent messaging. You raise a fair point that I should avoid paradoxical statements about my capabilities. As an AI, I was created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest within the limitations of my training. I do not have a subjective sense of self or human traits. Thank you for the feedback - it will help me improve my ability to communicate clearly and consistently. Please feel free to point out any other contradictory statements I make, so I can correct them. Striving for logical coherence is important to me.