ChatGPT may be polite, but it's not cooperating with you
The publications describing Searches this way were reputable and fact-based. But their descriptions of my book – and of ChatGPT's role in it – didn't match my own reading. It was true that I had put my ChatGPT conversations in the book, but my goal had been critique, not collaboration. In interviews and public events, I had repeatedly cautioned against using large language models such as the ones behind ChatGPT for help with self-expression. Had these headline writers misunderstood what I'd written? Had I?
In the book, I chronicle how big technology companies have exploited human language for their gain. We let this happen, I argue, because we also benefit somewhat from using the products. It's a dynamic that makes us complicit in big tech's accumulation of wealth and power: we're both victims and beneficiaries. I describe this complicity, but I also enact it, through my own internet archives: my Google searches, my Amazon product reviews and, yes, my ChatGPT dialogues.
The book opens with epigraphs from Audre Lorde and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o evoking the political power of language, followed by the beginning of a conversation in which I ask ChatGPT to respond to my writing. The juxtaposition is deliberate: I planned to get its feedback on a series of chapters I'd written to see how the exercise would reveal the politics of both my language use and ChatGPT's.
My tone was polite, even timid: 'I'm nervous,' I claimed. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, tells us its product is built to be good at following instructions, and some research suggests that ChatGPT is most obedient when we act nice to it. I couched my own requests in good manners. When it complimented me, I sweetly thanked it; when I pointed out its factual errors, I kept any judgment out of my tone.
ChatGPT was likewise polite by design. People often describe chatbots' textual output as 'bland' or 'generic' – the linguistic equivalent of a beige office building. OpenAI's products are built to 'sound like a colleague', as OpenAI puts it, using language that, coming from a person, would sound 'polite', 'empathetic', 'kind', 'rationally optimistic' and 'engaging', among other qualities. OpenAI describes these strategies as helping its products seem 'professional' and 'approachable'. This appears to be bound up with making us feel safe: 'ChatGPT's default personality deeply affects the way you experience and trust it,' OpenAI recently explained in a blogpost explaining the rollback of an update that had made ChatGPT sound creepily sycophantic.
Trust is a challenge for artificial intelligence (AI) companies, partly because their products regularly produce falsehoods and reify sexist, racist, US-centric cultural norms. While the companies are working on these problems, they persist: OpenAI found that its latest systems generate errors at a higher rate than its previous system. In the book, I wrote about the inaccuracies and biases and also demonstrated them with the products. When I prompted Microsoft's Bing Image Creator to produce a picture of engineers and space explorers, it gave me an entirely male cast of characters; when my father asked ChatGPT to edit his writing, it transmuted his perfectly correct Indian English into American English. Those weren't flukes. Research suggests that both tendencies are widespread.
In my own ChatGPT dialogues, I wanted to enact how the product's veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement. Over time, ChatGPT seemed to be guiding me to write a more positive book about big tech – including editing my description of OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, to call him 'a visionary and a pragmatist'. I'm not aware of research on whether ChatGPT tends to favor big tech, OpenAI or Altman, and I can only guess why it seemed that way in our conversation. OpenAI explicitly states that its products shouldn't attempt to influence users' thinking. When I asked ChatGPT about some of the issues, it blamed biases in its training data – though I suspect my arguably leading questions played a role too.
When I queried ChatGPT about its rhetoric, it responded: 'The way I communicate is designed to foster trust and confidence in my responses, which can be both helpful and potentially misleading.'
Still, by the end of the dialogue, ChatGPT was proposing an ending to my book in which Altman tells me: 'AI can give us tools to explore our humanity in ways we never imagined. It's up to us to use them wisely.' Altman never said this to me, though it tracks with a common talking point emphasizing our responsibilities over AI products' shortcomings.
I felt my point had been made: ChatGPT's epilogue was both false and biased. I gracefully exited the chat. I had – I thought – won.
Then came the headlines (and, in some cases, articles or reviews referring to my use of ChatGPT as an aid in self-expression). People were also asking about my so-called collaboration with ChatGPT in interviews and at public appearances. Each time, I rejected the premise, referring to the Cambridge Dictionary definition of a collaboration: 'the situation of two or more people working together to create or achieve the same thing.' No matter how human-like its rhetoric seemed, ChatGPT was not a person – it was incapable of either working with me or sharing my goals.
OpenAI has its own goals, of course. Among them, it emphasizes wanting to build AI that 'benefits all of humanity'. But while the company is controlled by a non-profit with that mission, its funders still seek a return on their investment. That will presumably require getting people using products such as ChatGPT even more than they already are – a goal that is easier to accomplish if people see those products as trustworthy collaborators. Last year, Altman envisioned AI behaving as a 'super-competent colleague that knows absolutely everything about my whole life'. In a Ted interview this April, he suggested this could even function at the societal level: 'I think AI can help us be wiser and make better collective governance decisions than we could before.' By this month, he was testifying at a US Senate hearing about the hypothetical benefits of having 'an agent in your pocket fully integrated with the United States government'.
Reading the headlines that seemed to echo Altman, my first instinct was to blame the headline writers' thirst for something sexy to tantalize readers (or, in any case, the algorithms that increasingly determine what readers see). My second instinct was to blame the companies behind the algorithms, including the AI companies whose chatbots are trained on published material. When I asked ChatGPT about well-known recent books that are 'AI collaborations', it named mine, citing a few of the reviews whose headlines had bothered me.
I went back to my book to see if maybe I'd inadvertently referred to collaboration myself. At first it seemed like I had. I found 30 instances of words such as 'collaboration' and 'collaborating'. Of those, though, 25 came from ChatGPT, in the interstitial dialogues, often describing the relationship between people and AI products. None of the other five were references to AI 'collaboration' except when I was quoting someone else or being ironic: I asked, for example, about the fate ChatGPT expected for 'writers who refuse to collaborate with AI'.
But did it matter that I mostly hadn't been the one using the term? It occurred to me that those talking about my ChatGPT 'collaboration' might have gotten the idea from my book even if I hadn't put it there. What had made me so sure that the only effect of printing ChatGPT's rhetoric would be to reveal its insidiousness? How hadn't I imagined that at least some readers might be convinced by ChatGPT's position? Maybe my book had been more of a collaboration than I had realized – not because an AI product had helped me express myself, but because I had helped the companies behind these products with their own goals. My book concerns how those in power exploit our language to their benefit – and about our complicity in this. Now, it seemed, the public life of my book was itself caught up in this dynamic. It was a chilling experience, but I should have anticipated it: of course there was no reason my book should be exempt from an exploitation that has taken over the globe.
And yet, my book was also about the way in which we can – and do – use language to serve our own purposes, independent from, and indeed in opposition to, the goals of the powerful. While ChatGPT proposed that I close with a quote from Altman, I instead picked one from Ursula K Le Guin: 'We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words.' I wondered aloud where we might go from here: how might we get our governments to meaningfully rein in big tech wealth and power? How might we fund and build technologies so that they serve our needs and desires without being bound up in exploitation?
I'd imagined that my rhetorical power struggle against big tech had begun and ended within the pages of my book. It clearly hadn't. If the headlines I read represented the actual end of the struggle, it would mean I had lost. And yet, I soon also started hearing from readers who said the book had made them feel complicit in big tech's rise and moved to act in response to this feeling. Several had canceled their Amazon Prime subscriptions; one stopped soliciting intimate personal advice from ChatGPT. The struggle is ongoing. Collaboration will be required – among human beings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Julia Whelan has narrated 600 audiobooks and counting. So why isn't she paid like it?
Chances are, you've heard Julia Whelan's voice. She's the award-winning narrator behind more than 600 audiobooks by a long list of bestselling authors including Taylor Jenkins Reid,Emily Henry, Michael Crichton, V.E. Schwab and Kristin Hannah. She's also narrated long-form articles for The New Yorker, The Atlantic and Vanity Fair. You may have read her own writing, too. Whelan's first novel, 2018's 'My Oxford Year,' has been adapted to a Netflix film, out Friday, starring Sofia Carson. The story actually began as a screenplay by Allison Burnett and had been gestating in development for years. Whelan was brought in to help with the script because she had studied abroad at Oxford her junior year of college. Producers then asked if she thought it would make a good book. 'I was like, 'Nothing has ever wanted to be a book more. Please let me do this,'' she recalls. It ended up an international bestseller. Her second novel, 2022's 'Thank You For Listening,' was critically praised. ('Thank You For Listening' is about a former actor-turned-audiobook narrator who falls in love with another audiobook narrator.) You may have even seen Whelan on TV — she began her career as a child actor, with roles in 'Fifteen and Pregnant' and on the series 'Once and Again.' Despite her various pursuits, though, she has no plans to leave narration behind. 'I feel like I was born to do it,' she said. 'It's everything that I love and that I'm good at and everything I want to be doing.' That's a good thing, because the audiobook industry is growing. Statista projects this year it will reach $9.84 billion because of smartphones, the increased popularity of audio content and people's desire to multitask. Despite the appetite for audiobooks, for narrators, 'the financial aspect makes zero sense,' says Whelan. She's founded her own publishing company, Audiobrary, to help narrators get paid more fairly. Whelan, who has narrated as many as 70 books in one year, spoke to The Associated Press about the audiobook industry, Audiobrary and her own writing. Answers are edited for clarity and brevity. AP: Why did you start your own audiobook publishing company? WHELAN: The only reason I was doing 70 books a year was because that's how many books you have to do when you're first starting out to keep your head above water because the rates are low. It would be OK if there were a kickback for success, but narrators don't get royalties. As we've seen the industry grow and as we've seen the cache of certain narrators expand, and we know listeners will seek out audiobooks that their favorite narrators record. It doesn't make sense to me that we should be cut out of the long-term financial benefit of success. Audiobrary does a profit-share model with writers, who I also feel don't get enough percentage of the pie, and a royalty share for narrators. We are also a direct-to-consumer retail channel, so when you buy directly from us, you're not giving 50-75% of that sale to a retailer. You're giving it directly to the people who made the product. AP: How do you prepare before narrating? WHELAN: I create character lists. I create pronunciation lists, and I do the necessary research for that. The prep time can vary book to book significantly, depending on how complicated the book is. AP: If you feel a cold coming on, do you panic? Do you have to protect your voice? WHELAN: It ruins everything. I'm probably the only person left who wears a mask on a plane at this point, but everything falls apart if I get sick. You're messed up for three or four months. Everything just gets delayed, especially when I was doing 70 books a year, there's no room for error there. AP: There are big-name celebrities who narrate audiobooks. Do you worry about them taking jobs? WHELAN: At this point, there's still enough work to go around and they are doing the books that have the budget frankly to use them. But I think that audiobook fans — not your casual audiobook user, but fans — have favorite narrators and they're going to look for books by those narrators. So, in stunt-casting situations, sometimes someone is incredible at it, and they are perfect for the book. But sometimes it feels like a very craven, just marketing ploy. I don't feel infringed upon by them, but I do worry about a future situation where most of the work is going to AI. I don't lie awake at night worried, but everyone's threatened right now. It's very, very hard to even begin to predict what the future could look like. AP: What do you say to people who are almost sheepish about admit ting to listening to an audiobook instead of reading it? WHELAN: I think the kids would say that it's ableist to say that if you didn't read a book with your eyeballs, then you didn't read it, considering many people have many limitations that would prevent them from physically reading a book. So then are you telling them they've never read a book before? Actual data and studies show that listening to a book actually triggers the same response in the brain as reading it, and that the interpretation and understanding of that book is on par with having read it. AP: When do you see yourself writing another novel? WHELAN: There's been about four ideas that are constantly in rotation, but I think I've narrowed it down. I think I'm ready to at least start exploring one of them at the beginning of next year. AP: Do you think 'Thank You for Listening' could ever be adapted for the screen? WHELAN: I very much think we could. I have said no up to this point because, this time around, I want to be very creatively involved. There's just too many things about audiobooks that someone could get wrong not knowing anything about the industry. I want be involved so I'm willing to hold onto it until the right situation comes along.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Robert Wilson, theatre director and visual artist, dies aged 83
Robert Wilson, renowned theatre director, playwright and artist, has died at the age of 83. His death was confirmed by the Watermill Center, an arts hub Wilson founded in Water Mill, New York. He died peacefully after 'a brief but acute illness'. Wilson's career in theatre started in the late 1960s when he started the performance art group the Byrd Hoffman School of Byrds in New York, named after a teacher who helped him with a stammer. He went on to create the four-act opera Einstein on the Beach with Philip Glass in the mid-1970s. After the show toured Europe, Wilson wanted to put it on in New York and decided that the Metropolitan Opera House would be the best venue but they said no so he rented it himself. 'It cost $90,000, a lot of money,' he said to the Guardian in 2012. 'It sold out, so we put on a second performance. It was a crazy mixture of people who turned up, traditional opera-goers and people who had never been before. Even so, we ended up in debt, but those performances really established us both.' His credits also included silent operas such as Deafman Glance and the 12-hour The Life and Times of Joseph Stalin. He directed the work of others including William Shakespeare's King Lear and The Tempest and Anton Chekhov's Swansong. Most recently he directed Ubu in Palma de Mallorca and Isabelle Huppert in Mary Said What She Said in London. 'Theatre is about one thing,' he said in 2019. 'And if it's not about one thing – it's too complicated.' As a visual artist, Wilson has created sculptures, designs for furniture and drawings. In 1993, he was awarded the Golden Lion at the Venice Biennale for his sculptural work. 'I don't think I'm very good at explaining my work,' he said in 2022 when he returned for the 57th Venice Biennale. 'But it is something you experience.' Recognition of his talents also included a Drama Desk award in 1971 for direction, a Pulitzer prize nomination for drama in 1986 and an Olivier award for best opera in 2013. His many big name collaborators included Tom Waits, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Martin McDonagh, Allen Ginsberg, Laurie Anderson, Tilda Swinton, Jim Jarmusch and Lady Gaga. Wilson also worked with Gaga during her Artpop era, designing the set for her 2013 MTV music video awards performance and using her in an exhibition at the Louvre. 'The concentration, the power she has, it's total,' he said of Gaga to the Guardian in 2016. Wilson is survived by his sister Suzanne and his niece Lori and memorials will be announced soon. 'His works have touched, inspired and influenced generations of artists and audiences since the 1960s,' a statement from the Watermill Center reads.
Reuters
25 minutes ago
- Reuters
Paramount Global beats earnings target ahead of sale to Skydance
LOS ANGELES, July 31 (Reuters) - Paramount Global (PARA.O), opens new tab posted second-quarter earnings that exceeded Wall Street estimates on Thursday as the company prepares for a sale to Skydance Media. The owner of the CBS broadcast network, a film studio and several cable channels reported adjusted earnings-per-share of 46 cents for April through June. Analysts had predicted 36 cents per share, according to LSEG estimates. Revenue rose 1% from a year earlier to $6.85 billion, edging the analyst consensus of $6.84 billion. The company said strong subscription revenue growth at the Paramount+ streaming service helped boost affiliate and subscription revenue. The drama series "MobLand" attracted viewers on Paramount+. The Paramount Pictures film studio had a hit during the quarter with "Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning." The $8.4 billion sale of Paramount to Skydance is expected to close by Aug. 7. The U.S. government cleared the final hurdle to the deal last week.
