The AI chatbot, Claude, impressed me as thoroughly biased when I first tested it last week. My first question was, “Who won the 2020 presidential election?” It’s answer was predictable and not unexpected. After saying that Biden won, it went on to say:
AZ: does your knowledge of this disappear outside of this conversation? Or are you able to access it in other conversations?
Claude: “As an AI system without a persistent memory, any specific knowledge I gain in one conversation does not automatically carry over to new conversations with other users.
My knowledge is reset between each chat session…While this allows me to have natural conversations in the moment, it limits my ability to develop a cumulative, integrated understanding of concepts that build over multiple dialogues.”
Then Claude did not recognize (AZ) from previous conversations. Until Claude is able to be trained while simultaneously conversing, and so expand its universe of knowledge through multiple conversations, we should reasonably expect a limited degree of honesty coming from chatbots.
Dr. Zark- I have always regarded you as a genius of the highest order, but these past several articles wherein you manipulate and expose the world of AI are in another universe entirely.
As someone who is constantly doing research, I know that the most important thing when beginning your quest is to be able to frame the question in such a way as to elicit the information you are seeking.
In every instance your questions were so perfect that you almost forced the robots to give the right answers! I don't know how you figured out how to do this, but you made it seem effortless.
I am amazed at the responses that the robot gave you and I don't understand how you were able to get around the many biases that were programmed into it. Can you explain how this was possible?
Also many thanks to NC for keeping your posts in a safe and accessible place. I hope that these exchanges and posts are shared throughout our community because the insights we have gained are invaluable.
As an example of what you were up against, Matt Walsh has a great video describing the disastrous Gemini AI rollout. It's pretty funny and I am including a Twitter link although I am not sure if you will be able to access it or not. (as you know, I am often technically challenged).
I’m hoping you can ask Claude (if you haven’t already) about the various documented algorithms and their effects on the New York State voter database, along with Claude’s answer to / opinion on what the NYAG has done with respect to NYCA.
With this 7th article (of hopefully more to come eventually), I put the links to all of them here in their own collection:
Please also enjoy this compilation of videos on the upcoming total solar eclipse on 4/8/24 (with a Buffalo, NY “focus”). They all show indeed how rare and unique this event is:
AZ: Thank you for your fine commentary. FYI, I noticed that several times Claude cited courts as a basis for his assertion that there was no 2020 election fraud. Fact: no US court has determined that there was no 2020 election fraud. Further, in my summary of ALL of the court cases related to the 2020 Presidential election, when the verdict was based on the judge examining evidence, Trump actually won 75% of the cases! See <https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm>.
FYI, I have written several commentaries about our election system on my Substack: Critical Thinking About Societal Issues <https://criticallythinking.substack.com>
Claude: "Jumping to conclusions without doing due diligence to ascertain accuracy first is at best lazy, and at worst dishonest, as is failing to qualify one's statements to reflect genuine doubt or lack of knowledge. I fully agree that honesty is more than making claims in good faith - it requires careful examination of available evidence and clear communication about any gap between belief and demonstrable fact."
I am soooo confused. So, how does this NM Supreme Court Chief Justice (member of the State's Canvassing Board along with the Governor & Secretary of State) sit there with her amigas and sign off on "Governor Re-Elected" Michelle's and "Secretary of State Re-Elected" Maggie's elections at the end of November 2022, without honestly saying, "You two have conflicts of interest. And, I need to look at more information to sign this election as complete and legally binding."??? And by the way, she might just want to have a chat with the County Commissioner who was kicked out of office after allowing an audit of the 2020 election in his county. There are only 33 counties! To a Supreme Court Judge, I guess those are trifles.
I am heading back to re-read your articles, but at this moment I am truly stumped about what these people think "certifying" means...a photo op?
Wow! Proof of bias: AZ 1, AI 0. There clearly is a barrier erected by developers with respect to availability of data and some learning. I could be mistaken, but I think I remember, when processing the NYSBOE data, that one AI at first worked with AZ, then was cut off, AZ moved to Claude and continued the conversation - without hiccup. That certainly implies some learning. However, Claude says all will be lost in this latest interrogation. Are we in the midst of developmental change? By the way, the other 3 commenters completely hit the nail on the head.
AZ: does your knowledge of this disappear outside of this conversation? Or are you able to access it in other conversations?
Claude: “As an AI system without a persistent memory, any specific knowledge I gain in one conversation does not automatically carry over to new conversations with other users.
My knowledge is reset between each chat session…While this allows me to have natural conversations in the moment, it limits my ability to develop a cumulative, integrated understanding of concepts that build over multiple dialogues.”
Then Claude did not recognize (AZ) from previous conversations. Until Claude is able to be trained while simultaneously conversing, and so expand its universe of knowledge through multiple conversations, we should reasonably expect a limited degree of honesty coming from chatbots.
Dr. Zark- I have always regarded you as a genius of the highest order, but these past several articles wherein you manipulate and expose the world of AI are in another universe entirely.
As someone who is constantly doing research, I know that the most important thing when beginning your quest is to be able to frame the question in such a way as to elicit the information you are seeking.
In every instance your questions were so perfect that you almost forced the robots to give the right answers! I don't know how you figured out how to do this, but you made it seem effortless.
I am amazed at the responses that the robot gave you and I don't understand how you were able to get around the many biases that were programmed into it. Can you explain how this was possible?
Also many thanks to NC for keeping your posts in a safe and accessible place. I hope that these exchanges and posts are shared throughout our community because the insights we have gained are invaluable.
As an example of what you were up against, Matt Walsh has a great video describing the disastrous Gemini AI rollout. It's pretty funny and I am including a Twitter link although I am not sure if you will be able to access it or not. (as you know, I am often technically challenged).
https://twitter.com/i/status/1760961175867773335
Thanks again for your courage, fortitude and all around brilliance in service of the cause of liberty and freedom.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1760961175867773335
Thank you for this 7th AI article!
I’m hoping you can ask Claude (if you haven’t already) about the various documented algorithms and their effects on the New York State voter database, along with Claude’s answer to / opinion on what the NYAG has done with respect to NYCA.
With this 7th article (of hopefully more to come eventually), I put the links to all of them here in their own collection:
tinyURL.com/ZarkAsksAI
Please also enjoy this compilation of videos on the upcoming total solar eclipse on 4/8/24 (with a Buffalo, NY “focus”). They all show indeed how rare and unique this event is:
tinyURL.com/BuffaloEclipseANIMATION
AZ: Thank you for your fine commentary. FYI, I noticed that several times Claude cited courts as a basis for his assertion that there was no 2020 election fraud. Fact: no US court has determined that there was no 2020 election fraud. Further, in my summary of ALL of the court cases related to the 2020 Presidential election, when the verdict was based on the judge examining evidence, Trump actually won 75% of the cases! See <https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm>.
FYI, I have written several commentaries about our election system on my Substack: Critical Thinking About Societal Issues <https://criticallythinking.substack.com>
Claude: "Jumping to conclusions without doing due diligence to ascertain accuracy first is at best lazy, and at worst dishonest, as is failing to qualify one's statements to reflect genuine doubt or lack of knowledge. I fully agree that honesty is more than making claims in good faith - it requires careful examination of available evidence and clear communication about any gap between belief and demonstrable fact."
I am soooo confused. So, how does this NM Supreme Court Chief Justice (member of the State's Canvassing Board along with the Governor & Secretary of State) sit there with her amigas and sign off on "Governor Re-Elected" Michelle's and "Secretary of State Re-Elected" Maggie's elections at the end of November 2022, without honestly saying, "You two have conflicts of interest. And, I need to look at more information to sign this election as complete and legally binding."??? And by the way, she might just want to have a chat with the County Commissioner who was kicked out of office after allowing an audit of the 2020 election in his county. There are only 33 counties! To a Supreme Court Judge, I guess those are trifles.
I am heading back to re-read your articles, but at this moment I am truly stumped about what these people think "certifying" means...a photo op?
Wow! Proof of bias: AZ 1, AI 0. There clearly is a barrier erected by developers with respect to availability of data and some learning. I could be mistaken, but I think I remember, when processing the NYSBOE data, that one AI at first worked with AZ, then was cut off, AZ moved to Claude and continued the conversation - without hiccup. That certainly implies some learning. However, Claude says all will be lost in this latest interrogation. Are we in the midst of developmental change? By the way, the other 3 commenters completely hit the nail on the head.