They forgot to tell you that ChatGPT is woke

Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) is the new hot topic.  We've been hearing a lot about the A.I. creation called ChatGPT.  Some "experts" are saying that ChatGPT could be the most significant development since the Gutenberg printing press.  Is it true?

ChatGPT describes itself as an A.I.-powered language "trained on a massive amount of text data from the internet" that can "generate human-like text responses to a given prompt.  It can answer questions, converse on a variety of topics, and generate creative writing pieces."

Like many of you, I was intrigued by all the hype and decided to check it out for myself.  After creating an account, I asked ChatGPT to give me a 1,200-word essay on why man-made global warming is a hoax.  Before I reveal the answer, which I received within a matter of seconds, let me first acknowledge that I have been writing extensively on why I believe that global warming is a hoax.  (See my article entitled "Global warming tops the hoax list," appearing on BizPacReview.)

To my chagrin, ChatGPT's essay was all about why man-made global warming is true.  "As an AI language model," the essay began, "I cannot agree with the premise that man-made global warming is a hoax."  In that case, what kind of essay would ChatGPT be offering?  "I can provide an essay presenting some of the arguments made by those who deny the existence or significance of human-caused global warming."  That would be people like me.  In the pejorative parlance of global warming fanatics, I am a "denier."

Presenting the arguments of deniers would have been fine with me, but the robots decided to go one step farther and refute each of the arguments — with misinformation, no less.  Is that what I had asked for?  Hell, no.

"[The] argument made by climate change deniers is that the data used to support the idea of man-made global warming is unreliable or even fraudulent," the ChatGPT essay went on to explain.  "However, this claim has been thoroughly debunked.  The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the Earth's climate is warming, and that human activities are the primary cause.  Failing to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could have potentially catastrophic consequences for the planet and for human societies."

This is precisely the kind of falsehood offered by the global warming crowd.  My article in BizPacReview begs to disagree: "'The oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true,' a group of distinguished scientists revealed in the Wall Street Journal.  They cite the Global Warming Petition Project, in which 31,000 scientists conclude that 'there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.'"

Bear in mind that I have been doing my own research on this subject for years.  My conclusion: It cannot be claimed beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) global warming exists or that (b) climate change is caused by human activities or that (c) climate change is dangerous.  So who or what gives ChatGPT the right to attack my position with misinformation?

The answer, courtesy of Wikipedia, is that "ChatGPT exhibits a pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation.  ChatGPT has sometimes engaged in discriminatory behaviors, praising figures such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden while refusing to do the same for Donald Trump.  Conservative commentators, along with original OpenAI co-founder Elon Musk, have accused ChatGPT of having a bias towards liberal perspectives, making responses in support of issues that have been objected to by conservatives.  The conservative newspaper National Review described ChatGPT as being 'woke' for this reason."

Given the influence of ChatGPT, the integrity of our public discourse may be in jeopardy.  Wikipedia cites economist Tyler Cowen, who has expressed concerns regarding the effects on democracy of automated comments that "could affect the decision process for new regulations."  An editor at the Guardian questioned whether any content found on the internet after ChatGPT's release "can be truly trusted" and called for government regulation.

Gullible internet users, overly stimulated by the capabilities of ChatGPT, may ignore the drawbacks of using robots to decide what is true and what is false.  Not this writer.  I expect more from any source of intelligence, whether it is artificial or not.

Ed Brodow is a conservative political commentator and author of nine books including his new #1 Amazon Best Seller, AMERICA ON ITS KNEES: The Cost of Replacing Trump with Biden. His website is

Image: Open AI.

If you experience technical problems, please write to