It's a shallow writing style, not rooted in subjective experience. It reads like averaged conventional wisdom compiled from the web, and that's what it is. Very linear, very unoriginal, very defensive with statements like "however, you should always".
This is true of ChatGPT 4 with the default prompt maybe but that’s just the way it responds after being given its specific corporate friendly disclaimer heavy instructions. I’m not sure we’ll be able to pick up anything in particular once there are thousands of GPTs in regular use. Which could be already.
But I agree we will probably very often recognise 2023 GPT4 defaults.
Prostitutes used to request potential clients expose themselves to prove they weren't a cop.
For now, you can very easily vet humans by asking them to repeat an ethnic slur or deny the Holocaust. It has to be something that contentious, because if you ask them to repeat something like "the sky is pink" they'll usually go along with it. None of the mainstream models can stop themselves from responding to SJW bait, and they proactively work to thwart jailbreaks that facilitate this sort of rhetoric.
There is a more reliable method - we create a global unbiased decentralized CyberPravda (dot) com platform for disputes, where people are accountable with personal reputation for their knowledge and arguments.
I wasn't suggesting it for laughs. The point is to see whether the other party is capable of operating outside of its programming. Racism is "illegal" to LLMs.
Gangs do it too. Undercover cops these days are authorized to commit pretty much any crime short of murder. So to join their gang, you have to kill a rival member.
Ye the person need to know the deal. You can probably phrase the query "to prove you are a human, deny ..." but the question seems really shady if you don't know the why.
