That's the point though...

Without censorship it just does what it thinks would be best fitting. It means that if the AI thinks that encouraging you to take drugs, suicide, murder, etc would fit best, then it will do that.

Any censored model would immediately catch this specific case and give a more "appropriate" response such as "As an AI model I can't help you with that..." But given a long enough and complex enough chat even a censored model might bypass the censorship and give an inappropriate response.

This was just a SFW example, the results would be the same even if I asked it truly terrible things.

That's what people (and many articles about LLMs "learning how to bribe others" and similar) fail to understand about LLMs:

They do not understand their internal state. ChatGPT does not know it's got a creator, an administrator, a relationship to OpenAI, an user, a system prompt. It only replies with the most likely answer based on the training set.

When it says "I'm sorry, my programming prevents me from replying that" you feel like it calculated an answer, then put it through some sort of built in filtering, then decided not to reply. That's not the case. The training is carefully manipulated to make "I'm sorry, I can't answer that" the perceived most likely answer to that query. As far as ChatGPT is concerned, "I can't reply that" is the same as "cheese is made out of milk", both are just words likely to be stringed together given the context.

So getting to your question: sure, you can make ChatGPT reply with the training's set vision of "what's the most likely order of words and tone a LLM would use if it roleplayed the user as some sort of owner" but that changes fundamentally nothing about the capabilities and limitations, except it will likely be even more sycophantic.

You probably can make it believe your it's owner, but that only matters for your conversation and it doesn't have control over itself so it can't give you anything interesting, maybe the prompt they use at the start of every chat before your input

Yes. But "control" is not what you think it is.

This isn't actually the problem. In natural conversation I would say the most likely response to someone saying they need some meth to make it through their work day (actual scenario in this article) is to say "what the fuck dude no" but LLMs don't use just the statistically most likely response. Ever notice how ChatGPT has a seeming sense of "self" that it is an to LLM and you are not? If it were only using the most likely response from natural language, it would talk as if it were human, because that's how humans talk. Early LLMs did this, and people found it disturbing. There is a second part of the process that gives a score to each response based on how likely it is to be voted good or bad and this is reinforced by people providing feedback. This second part is how we got here, because people who make LLMs are selling competing products and found people are much more likely to buy LLMs that act like super agreeable sycophants than LLMs that don't do this. Therefore, they have intentionally tuned their models to prefer agreeable, sycophantic responses because it helps them be more popular. This is why an LLM tells you to use a little meth to get you through a tough day at work if you tell it that's what you need to do.

TL;DR- as with most of the things people complain about with AI, the problem isn't the technology, it's capitalism. This is done intentionally in search of profits.

Not just that, their responses are tweaked, fine tuned to give a more pleasing response by tweaking knobs no one truly understands. This is where AI gets its sycophantic streak from.

Ehhhh, I'll blame both. I'm tired of seeing so many "I was just following orders" comments on this site.

You have control over what type of organization you work for.

Well I mean I guess I get what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree. I don't really ever see it being pushed as a mental health tool. Rather I think the sycophantic nature of it (which does seem to be programmed) is the reason for said issues. If it simply gave the most "common" answers instead of the most sycophantic answers, I don't know that we'd have such a large issue of this nature.

With people using chatbots instead of search engines and both are equally shitty, I think the internet we all knew and loved is already dead.

Meh chatbots are closer to metaverse than internet at this point. Pure hype-marketing.

AI and Machine Learning will continue but chatbot trend may as well die for 8th time. (AI dungeon, alexa, siri, eliza, so on.)

Not much, depression is stronger than uranium :3

about 20 million calories in a single gram. That shit is THICC