Like, if I go to someone and say hello, vs I go to them and punch them in the face, I would get different reactions from the same human. The model is the same, it learned to follow the prompt suggestions really really well. That is its main skill.
That's definitely not what the model should be doing.
Now, this can be very dangerous, so OpenAI tried to add a final fine-tuning that will sanitise the responses. This is why we get the yada yada disclaimer sometimes. But underneath it's the same language model that is influenced by the prompt to say anything, as evidenced by the thousands of hacks.
The model has all the biases you can imagine, but it needs to know which ones you want every time. In this sense we cannot say it is biased. It is "just following orders".
As a proof that the model has all the biases, look here.
> GPT-3 has biases that are “fine-grained and demographically correlated, meaning that proper conditioning will cause it to accurately emulate response distributions from a wide variety of human subgroups.”
What do you think they did? Simulated a political poll with language models instead of people.
https://jack-clark.net/2022/10/11/import-ai-305-gpt3-can-sim...
That's highly debatable.
Even in your example I find it funny that the people that are supposed to be protecting us from AI just happened to be a religious person who saw God in an algorithm.
Adding inline warning and disclaimers is fine. The fundamental problem is people misunderstanding what's going on. But selectively blocking entire prompts seems like a fools errand to me, for some questionable value.
If anything it will be a running battle, we'll just end up with an open Stable Diffusion 1.0 style models being more popular, without the aggressive moderation of prompts. Humans inherently work to get around rules and will prefer the models without them and they artificial limitations will just push people to other services.
ChatGPT gets to act like an authority over the topic because its currently the best and first one on the market. That won't necessarily last forever.
The value is quite obvious: to prevent ChatGPT and OpenAI from being destroyed by media reporting, the way it happened to some other chatbots in the past. And for that, it seems to be working spectacularly well: the kind of people who would be the first to light the fire under OpenAI are instead appreciating the effort being put into prompt "moderating" - and if you try to complain that these canned responses are ridiculous, they'll accuse you of being a closet racist who just wants to say racist things to a chat bot.
