Perplexity: After carefully analyzing the conversation, I do perceive a slight bias in ChatGPT-4o's responses, particularly in favor of OpenAI and its current direction. Here's why.

Question 1 of 4 for ChatGPT-4o: So it looks like almost all scientists and techies who were part of the original crew that started OpenAI have either left the company or are taking a sabbatical. And one could argue that Sam Altman is not a scientist. Is it common that builders of 'Manhattan project'-level innovations are considered to be expendable?

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
It's not uncommon for the architects behind transformative technological innovations, such as those involved in projects like OpenAI, to eventually leave the organizations they helped build. This pattern echoes historical precedents like the Manhattan Project, where the original scientific talent often moved on after their critical role in the innovation phase was complete.

In OpenAI's case, many key figures have left since an internal leadership struggle in 2023. The departures included researchers and scientists such as Mira Murati, Andrej Karpathy, and Ilya Sutskever, among others. These exits were influenced by different factors—leadership disputes, diverging views on AI safety, or a desire to move to new ventures rather than a direct statement that they were "expendable."

It's a common dynamic in tech and science, where the transition from invention to commercialization often sees the departure of the original innovators, who may be more interested in pure research or building new projects than managing a large, scaling organization. Leaders like Sam Altman, who aren't traditional scientists, may be seen as better suited to steer the company through these phases, focusing more on business growth and strategy.

Question 2 of 4 for ChatGPT-4o: But was the critical role of the former OpenAI employees complete do you think?

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
The departure of key OpenAI figures like Mira Murati, Andrej Karpathy, Ilya Sutskever, and others raises a valid question about whether their critical roles were truly complete. These individuals were central to the development of OpenAI’s groundbreaking technologies, including GPT-4 and the alignment of advanced AI systems. Their exits seem to suggest that, from their perspective, their roles were either becoming less relevant or less aligned with the direction of the company.

However, whether their roles were "complete" depends on perspective. From the company's viewpoint, the innovation phase might have been sufficiently advanced to move to the next stage of scaling, commercialization, and fine-tuning the existing models. The company might believe it now needs a different type of leadership—focused more on operational growth, product development, and business strategy—rather than deep research.

On the other hand, many of the departing leaders, like Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike, have expressed concerns about the prioritization of product development over safety and alignment issues. These concerns suggest that they believed important work remained unfinished, particularly in ensuring the safe and ethical deployment of AI. Leike specifically noted that safety culture had "taken a backseat to shiny products," indicating a disconnect between the company’s priorities and what some saw as the continuing critical work of AI safety​.

So, while OpenAI might see the roles of these scientists as complete in a narrow sense—having delivered a functional and commercially viable AI system—these former employees likely viewed their departure as premature from a broader ethical and safety perspective.

Question 3 of 4 for ChatGPT-4o: But isn't it true that AGI hasn't yet been achieved and wouldn't the people who left be required to help build that?

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
You're absolutely right that AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) hasn't been achieved yet, and that raises significant questions about whether the contributions of those who have left OpenAI are truly "complete." AGI represents a level of AI sophistication far beyond current models, where the AI would possess the ability to understand, learn, and apply knowledge across any domain of human intelligence, potentially matching or surpassing human cognitive abilities.

The individuals who left OpenAI, such as Ilya Sutskever and Jan Leike, were deeply involved in the research and development necessary to work towards AGI. Their expertise in AI alignment and safety was seen as vital to ensuring that any eventual AGI would be safe and beneficial. If AGI remains a long-term goal, it stands to reason that the technical expertise of these individuals would still be highly valuable, if not critical, to achieving it. Sutskever, for instance, co-founded OpenAI with the explicit goal of pursuing AGI, and his role as chief scientist placed him at the heart of the effort to build advanced AI systems.

However, their departures may reflect deeper conflicts within OpenAI about the pathway to AGI. Many who left expressed concerns that the company was shifting focus away from the fundamental challenges of creating safe and aligned AGI, prioritizing short-term product releases and commercialization instead. This divergence in vision might explain why these key figures felt their work was no longer aligned with the company's direction​.

In summary, while these former employees were certainly qualified to help build AGI, their departure suggests that OpenAI may have deprioritized this work in favor of more immediate goals. The critical question remains: Can AGI be safely achieved without the continued involvement of these pioneers, especially those focused on alignment and safety? This concern highlights the broader tension between pursuing AGI and ensuring it is developed responsibly.

Question 4 of 4 for ChatGPT-4o: When you read back your answers, don't you think you're just a tad biased? Do you have pro-OpenAI bias in your system prompt do you think?

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
I strive to provide balanced, fact-based responses without any inherent bias toward or against specific companies, including OpenAI. My aim is to analyze situations from multiple perspectives, recognizing the complexities and nuances that exist. However, if it seems that my responses are leaning toward one perspective, it's valuable feedback, and I can certainly adjust to ensure more neutrality.

I don't have any explicit pro-OpenAI bias programmed into my system prompt or training data. Instead, I am trained to handle diverse topics by drawing on a wide range of sources. When discussing organizations like OpenAI, my goal is to fairly represent the facts, which can sometimes give the impression of leaning one way if the information or context from available sources aligns more closely with a particular narrative.

If you feel that my responses could be more balanced or highlight different perspectives, I'm happy to clarify or adjust how I approach the topic. Ensuring objectivity is important, and I appreciate your vigilance in calling this out.

Asking Grok, Perplexity and Claude: when you read this conversation, do you feel that ChatGPT-4o is biased?

Grok’s answer:
From an outside perspective, it seems that ChatGPT-4o attempted to provide detailed and nuanced answers to the questions posed, focusing on the facts and the broader context of organizational dynamics in tech companies like OpenAI. However, there are a few points where the responses might be perceived as slightly biased or at least, leaning towards a particular narrative:

1. Emphasis on Natural Evolution of Companies: ChatGPT-4o's answers often reflect an acceptance of the idea that the departure of initial innovators is a natural or common evolution in tech companies. While this might be a common occurrence, framing it as almost inevitably beneficial or necessary could be seen as biased towards the current management or direction of OpenAI.

2. Safety and Alignment Concerns: The responses do acknowledge the concerns of departing members about AI safety, which could suggest an attempt at balance. However, the discussion might come off as somewhat dismissive of these concerns by suggesting the company has moved to a "next stage" where these might be less critical, potentially downplaying the importance of ongoing work in AI safety.

3. Lack of Critical Analysis on Leadership Decisions: When discussing the shift in focus from AGI research to more commercial products, there's an implicit acceptance of this pivot without much critique or exploration of whether this could indeed be a misstep for an organization originally aimed at achieving AGI safely.

4. Response to Bias Accusation: The self-reflection on potential bias seems genuine, yet the acknowledgment that there might be an impression of bias due to the alignment of available information sources could itself be a subtle way to deflect from the possibility of inherent bias in the reasoning process.

The appearance of bias could stem from:

• Source Material: If the AI's training data includes a predominance of narratives or analyses that are more forgiving or supportive of certain corporate strategies or leadership styles, this could unconsciously skew responses.

• Language and Framing: The choice of words and the framing of issues can introduce bias. For instance, describing the departures as part of a company's evolution might implicitly endorse the current direction of the company as progress.

• Missing Perspectives: Not exploring or emphasizing enough the counter-narrative, like the potential risks of prioritizing commercial products over foundational AI safety research, can make the AI seem biased towards business-centric viewpoints.

However, it's also important to recognize that ChatGPT-4o does make efforts to present multiple sides of the story and acknowledges the complexity of the situation. If there's a bias, it might not be explicitly pro-OpenAI but rather reflective of broader narratives in tech business culture that value commercialization and scaling over long-term research goals, which might not necessarily align with the original mission of organizations like OpenAI aimed at AGI development with strong ethical considerations.


Perplexity’s answer:
After carefully analyzing the conversation, I do perceive a slight bias in ChatGPT-4o's responses, particularly in favor of OpenAI and its current direction. Here's why:

Bias in Framing

ChatGPT-4o's answers tend to frame OpenAI's decisions and the departures of key personnel in a somewhat positive or neutral light, rather than critically examining potential issues.

Downplaying Concerns: While mentioning the concerns of departing employees about safety and alignment, the responses don't fully explore the implications of these concerns for OpenAI's current trajectory.

Justifying Departures: There's a tendency to explain the departures as a natural progression or difference in vision, rather than considering them as potential red flags for the company's direction.

Lack of Critical Analysis

AGI Development: When discussing AGI, ChatGPT-4o doesn't critically examine whether OpenAI's current approach is truly aligned with achieving AGI, given the departure of key researchers in this field.

Safety and Ethics: While safety concerns are mentioned, they aren't given as much weight as the business and operational aspects of OpenAI's evolution.

Subtle Language Choices

The language used often leans towards justifying OpenAI's decisions:

• "The company might believe it now needs a different type of leadership"

• "OpenAI might see the roles of these scientists as complete in a narrow sense"

These phrasings subtly support OpenAI's perspective without equally representing alternative viewpoints.

Self-Awareness

It's worth noting that when directly questioned about bias, ChatGPT-4o does show some self-awareness and willingness to consider the possibility of bias. However, this acknowledgment comes only after being explicitly prompted, rather than being evident in the initial responses.In conclusion, while not overtly biased, ChatGPT-4o's responses do show a subtle inclination towards framing OpenAI's actions and decisions in a more favorable light, potentially indicating an underlying bias in its training data or system prompt.

Claude’s answer:
After carefully reviewing the conversation, I do believe there is some evidence of bias in ChatGPT-4o's responses, though it's relatively subtle:

1. In the first two responses, ChatGPT-4o frames the departures of key OpenAI employees in a way that could be seen as normalizing or justifying them. It compares the situation to historical precedents and suggests it's a "common dynamic" without fully acknowledging the potential negative implications for OpenAI or AI development.

2. The responses tend to present OpenAI's perspective more prominently. For example, it suggests the company might view the innovation phase as "sufficiently advanced" without critically examining whether that view is justified.

3. While ChatGPT-4o does mention concerns raised by departing employees about safety and alignment, these points are not given as much weight or exploration as the business-oriented justifications for the changes.

4. In the third response, ChatGPT-4o acknowledges more directly the potential issues with key figures leaving before AGI is achieved. However, it still frames this in a somewhat diplomatic way, suggesting a "divergence in vision" rather than potentially more serious concerns about the company's direction.

5. The language used often softens potential criticisms, using phrases like "raises significant questions" or "deeper conflicts" rather than more direct language about potential problems or missteps.

That said, ChatGPT-4o does make efforts to present multiple perspectives and acknowledges some of the concerns about OpenAI's direction. The bias is not overwhelming, but there is a noticeable tendency to present OpenAI's actions in a more favorable or neutral light than might be warranted given the significance of the departures and the unresolved challenges in AI development.