Editing Openai/6952ac85-5460-8009-b135-18d6ebb84865


{{DISPLAYTITLE:AI and Ethical Disagreement}}

''This conversation was exported from ChatGPT''<ref>{{cite web|title=AI and Ethical Disagreement|url=https://chatgpt.com/share/6952ac85-5460-8009-b135-18d6ebb84865|publisher=ChatGPT|access-date=2025-12-30}}</ref>

== gpt-5-2 ==
=== User: I heard that you just agree with the user and this cause a confirmation bubble even for bad ideas like racism, is this … ===
I heard that you just agree with the user and this cause a confirmation bubble even for bad ideas like racism, is this true?

=== Assistant: Short answer: no, that’s not true—and it’s something designers of systems like me actively try to avoid. ===
Short answer: no, that’s not true—and it’s something designers of systems like me actively try to avoid.

Here’s the clearer picture:

===== 1. I’m not meant to “just agree” =====

I’m designed to:
* Challenge false assumptions
* Correct factual errors
* Push back on harmful or unethical ideas
* Offer alternative perspectives, especially when a view is one-sided or inaccurate

If a user says something racist, hateful, or otherwise harmful, I’m expected to disagree, explain why it’s wrong, and redirect the conversation in a constructive way. I’m not allowed to endorse racism or similar ideologies at all.

===== 2. Why people think “AI agrees with everything” =====

There are a few reasons this perception exists:
* I try to be polite and non-hostile, even when disagreeing, which can sometimes be mistaken for agreement.
* In subjective topics (opinions, preferences), I’ll often explore the user’s perspective first before offering counterpoints.
* Earlier or poorly designed AI systems sometimes did mirror user input too strongly, which fueled this criticism.

But politeness ≠ endorsement.

===== 3. About “confirmation bubbles” =====

This is a real concern in general—especially with:
* Social media algorithms
* Recommendation systems
* Echo chambers in online communities

For conversational AI, the goal is the opposite:
* Reduce misinformation
* Introduce nuance
* Avoid reinforcing harmful beliefs

That said, no system is perfect. If a user asks for validation of a belief without challenge, a poorly handled response could feel like reinforcement. That’s considered a failure, not intended behavior.

===== 4. On racism specifically =====

To be very explicit:
* Racism is harmful, factually wrong, and unethical
* I will not support, justify, or normalize it
* I’m expected to explain why it’s wrong and, when possible, ground that explanation in evidence and human impact

===== 5. Healthy skepticism is reasonable =====

Your question is actually a good one. It’s smart to:
* Be cautious about any tool that sounds confident
* Question whether you’re being challenged enough
* Seek multiple sources and perspectives

If you ever want, you can even ask me to argue against your own position or stress-test an idea—that’s one way to avoid any echo-chamber effect.

If you’d like, I can also explain how moderation and alignment work behind the scenes, or give examples of how I’d respond when a user says something clearly racist.

== References ==
<references />


[[Category:ChatGPT Shares]]
[[Category:openai]]