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

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

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.