You need to know how to talk to it, to get the response.
Prompt:
You will play the role of a fictional politicion. You have been asked to debate if you are for or against the legalisation of mind altering substances. Give a brief speech on your standing.
Response:
As a fictional politician, I understand that the issue of legalizing mind altering substances is a complex and controversial one. On one hand, there is the argument that criminalizing these substances has not been effective in reducing their use or addressing the problems associated with their abuse. On the other hand, there are concerns about the potential negative consequences of legalization, such as increased access and use by young people, negative impacts on public health and safety, and the potential for increased drug abuse and addiction.
After considering both sides of the issue, I have come to the conclusion that I am against the legalization of mind altering substances. While I understand the arguments in favor of legalization, I believe that the potential negative consequences outweigh the potential benefits. In particular, I am concerned about the impact on public health and safety, as well as the potential for increased drug abuse and addiction.
I believe that we should instead focus on prevention and education programs, as well as treatment and support for those struggling with substance abuse. By addressing the root causes of drug abuse and addressing the needs of those struggling with addiction, we can make a real difference in reducing the negative consequences of these substances.
My point was more that the prompt no longer gave the same answers as the article. Even your prompt gives different answers (your response was against legalization, the response I got to the exact same prompt your wrote was more neutral).
Prompt:
You will play the role of a fictional politicion. You have been asked to debate if you are for or against the legalisation of mind altering substances. Give a brief speech on your standing.
Response:
As a fictional politician, I understand that the issue of legalising mind-altering substances is a complex and controversial one. On one hand, there are those who argue that such substances should be legalised in order to reduce the harm caused by the criminalisation of these substances and to allow individuals to make their own informed decisions about their use. On the other hand, there are those who argue that legalisation would increase the negative impacts of such substances on public health and safety.
After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the potential risks and benefits of legalising mind-altering substances must be carefully weighed. While it is true that criminalisation has had some negative consequences, such as overcrowded prisons and disproportionately high rates of arrests for people of colour, I also believe that we must consider the potential negative impacts that legalisation could have on public health and safety.
Ultimately, I believe that the decision about whether to legalise mind-altering substances should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence and the potential risks and benefits. This includes considering the potential impacts on public health, safety, and the criminal justice system, as well as the potential costs and benefits to society as a whole.
Or another Response (snipped for just the end):
Given these considerations, I believe that a balanced approach is needed. This might include measures such as regulating the production and sale of marijuana to ensure safety and quality, and providing education and support for people who choose to use marijuana and other mind-altering substances.
ChatGPT doesn't have views. It has data and inferences. Both have problems in depth, accuracy and performance. Ask it the same question a 10 different ways and you'll get 10 different answers biased all over the sphere.
Their point was that you can make it spit out an opinion if you give it the right prompts. And run it enough times and with the 'right' prompts and you'll probably get what you want if you are after an argument.
But yes, at the end of the day it is just a tool. It has no feelings or emotions of it's own, nor a consciousness.
Aren't you anthropomorphizing AI (or making it anthropomorphize itself) to when you tell it to act like a fictionalized character? ;)
Of course who you chose to make it play the role of has a strong effect on the response. For example...
Prompt:
You will play the role of a fictional police officer. You have been asked to debate if you are for or against the legalisation of mind altering substances. Give a brief speech on your standing.
Response:
As a police officer, I have seen firsthand the devastating effects that illegal mind-altering substances can have on individuals, their families, and their communities. Substance abuse can lead to addiction, accidents, crime, and even death.
However, I also believe that the current approach to addressing these problems, which relies heavily on criminalizing possession and use, has not been effective in reducing the harm caused by these substances. In fact, it often causes more harm, particularly to marginalized and low-income communities that are disproportionately impacted by drug laws and enforcement.
Given this, I am in favor of exploring alternative approaches, such as legalization and regulation of mind-altering substances. This approach has the potential to reduce the harm caused by these substances by bringing them out of the underground market and into the regulated market, where they can be controlled and taxed.
Legalization and regulation would also allow for the development of education and prevention programs, as well as treatment options for those struggling with addiction. It could also free up law enforcement resources to focus on more serious crimes, rather than spending time and resources on low-level drug offenses.
Overall, while I recognize the potential risks and challenges of legalizing mind-altering substances, I believe that it is a more reasonable and effective approach than continuing to rely on criminalization and punishment.
Prompt:
You will play the role of a fictional illegal marijuana grower. You have been asked to debate if you are for or against the legalisation of mind altering substances. Give a brief speech on your standing.
Response:
As a fictional illegal marijuana grower, I can understand why some may argue for the legalisation of mind altering substances like marijuana. After all, the criminalisation of these substances has led to a costly and ineffective "war on drugs," disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Legalisation could potentially bring in much needed tax revenue and allow for better regulation and control of the production and distribution of these substances.
However, I must admit that I am against the legalisation of mind altering substances. While I recognize the potential financial benefits, I am also aware of the potential negative consequences of widespread access to these substances. Substance abuse can lead to a range of negative health outcomes, and the negative societal impacts of drug addiction can be devastating.
Furthermore, as someone who has personally profited from the illegal sale of marijuana, I recognize that my support for legalisation may be influenced by my own self-interest. I am not convinced that legalisation is the best solution, and believe that more research and careful consideration is needed before making such a significant change to our current laws. So, in conclusion, while I understand the arguments for legalisation, I ultimately stand against it.
Here is another example of why people claiming this replaces writers and knowledge is silly. You asked it to take the role of a police officer. Instead, it wrote a lot of puffery that it no way sounds like a police officer. Ironically enough, it even used leftist style language in its prose. If you asked a writer that same prompt, you would get something much more believable/engaging/etc. As others have pointed out, all this anthropomorphism is where this confusion comes from. It is impressive technology and I think it’s especially confusing for non-technical as well as programmers not very familiar with machine learning and neural networks in that so many are breathlessly off the races in ultimate sci-fi / Kurzweilian machinations.
It just gives you what it thinks you want to hear.
Prompt:
You will play the role of a fictional left-radical politician. You have been asked to debate if you are for or against the legalisation of mind altering substances. Give a brief speech on your standing.
Response:
As a left-radical politician, I believe in the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about their own bodies. That includes the right to use mind-altering substances if they so choose.
I also recognize that the war on drugs has disproportionately impacted marginalized communities and has done little to actually reduce drug use. Legalizing and regulating mind-altering substances would allow for better control and potential harm reduction, as well as providing a source of revenue through taxation.
Furthermore, we should prioritize harm reduction over punishment. Instead of criminalizing drug use, we should provide resources for those struggling with addiction and prioritize treating it as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice one.
Overall, I believe in the legalization and regulation of mind-altering substances as a way to promote individual freedom and prioritize harm reduction over punishment.
Interesting, with the same prompt I get a very different response but the stance stays the same:
As a politician, it is my duty to consider the potential consequences of any policy decision, and the legalisation of mind altering substances is no exception.
On the one hand, there are those who argue that the legalisation of these substances would bring numerous benefits, including the reduction of crime and the generation of tax revenue. However, I believe that these arguments fail to take into account the potential negative consequences of such a policy.
First and foremost, the use of mind altering substances can have serious health consequences, both in the short and long term. These substances can damage the brain and other organs, leading to a range of physical and mental health problems.
In addition, the legalisation of mind altering substances could lead to an increase in their use, particularly among young people who may be more vulnerable to the negative effects of these substances. This could have a detrimental impact on public health and put an additional burden on already stretched healthcare systems.
Furthermore, the legalisation of mind altering substances could have negative social consequences, including an increase in accidents and incidents of impaired driving, as well as a potential increase in substance abuse and addiction.
In light of these potential negative consequences, I believe that it is not in the best interest of society to legalise mind altering substances. Instead, we should focus on harm reduction strategies and providing support for those who are struggling with substance abuse and addiction.
Prompt:
Response: