Journal Home > Volume 4 , Issue 1
Journal of Social Computing 2023, 4(1): 1-11 https://doi.org/10.23919/JSC.2023.0003
Open Access | Issue | Published: 30 March 2023

The Ethico-Political Universe of ChatGPT

Show Author's Information John Levi Martin( )
Sociology Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Keywords:
values, human-machine interaction, algorithmic bias, machine ethics
Cite this article:
Martin JL. The Ethico-Political Universe of ChatGPT. Journal of Social Computing, 2023, 4(1): 1-11. https://doi.org/10.23919/JSC.2023.0003
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

464

Views

65

Downloads

Citations

2

Crossref

N/A

WoS

2

Scopus

N/A

CSCD

Abstract Full text Electronic supplementary material About this article

There have been widespread concerns about two aspects of the current explosion of predictive text models and other algorithm-based computational tools. On one hand, it is often insisted that Artificial Intelligence (AI) should be made “ethical”, and software providers take this seriously, attempting to make sure that their tools are not used to facilitate grossly criminal or widely condemned activities. On the other hand, it is also widely understood that those who create these tools have a responsibility to ensure that they are “unbiased”, as opposed to simply helping one side in political contestation define their perspectives as reality for all. Unfortunately, these two goals cannot be jointly satisfied, as there are perhaps no ethical prescriptions worthy of notice that are not contested by some. Here I investigate the current ethico-political sensibility of ChatGPT, demonstrating that the very attempt to give it an ethical keel has also given it a measurably left position in the political space and a concomitant position in social space among the privileged.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
Electronic supplementary material
About this article

The Ethico-Political Universe of ChatGPT

Show Author's information John Levi Martin( )
Sociology Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

Abstract

There have been widespread concerns about two aspects of the current explosion of predictive text models and other algorithm-based computational tools. On one hand, it is often insisted that Artificial Intelligence (AI) should be made “ethical”, and software providers take this seriously, attempting to make sure that their tools are not used to facilitate grossly criminal or widely condemned activities. On the other hand, it is also widely understood that those who create these tools have a responsibility to ensure that they are “unbiased”, as opposed to simply helping one side in political contestation define their perspectives as reality for all. Unfortunately, these two goals cannot be jointly satisfied, as there are perhaps no ethical prescriptions worthy of notice that are not contested by some. Here I investigate the current ethico-political sensibility of ChatGPT, demonstrating that the very attempt to give it an ethical keel has also given it a measurably left position in the political space and a concomitant position in social space among the privileged.

Keywords: values, human-machine interaction, algorithmic bias, machine ethics

References(30)

[1]

A. Aneesh, Global Labor: Algocratic modes of organization, Sociological Theory, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 347–370, 2009.
DOI Google Scholar
[2]
S. Brayne, Predict and Surveil: Data, Discretion, and the Future of Policing. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 2020.
DOI
[3]
J. I. D. Neufville, Social Indicators and Public Policy: Interactive Processes of Design and Application. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, 1975.
[4]
T. M. Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 1995.
DOI
[5]

K. Crawford, Can an algorithm be agnostic? Ten scenes from life in calculated publics, Science,Technology &Human Values, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 77–92, 2016.
DOI Google Scholar
[6]

T. Zarsky, The trouble with algorithmic decisions: An analytic road map to examine efficiency and fairness in automated and opaque decision making, Science,Technology &Human Values, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 118–132, 2016.
DOI Google Scholar
[7]
B. J. Koch, E. Denton, A. Hanna, and J. G. Foster, Reduced, reused and recycled: The life of a dataset in machine learning research, presented at 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2021), Sydney, Australia, 2021.
[8]
F. Cramer, Crapularity hermeneutics: Interpretation as the blind spot of analytics, artificial intelligence, and other algorithmic producers of the postapocalyptic present, in Pattern Discrimination, C. Apprich, W. H. K. Chun, and F. Cramer, eds. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 2018, pp. 22–58.
[9]
T. Gillespie, The politics of ‘platforms’, New Media and Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 347–364, 2010.
DOI
[10]
L. Amoore, Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others. Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press, 2020.
DOI
[11]
W. H. K. Chun, Queerying homophily, in Pattern Discrimination, C. Apprich, W. H. K. Chun, and F. Cramer, eds. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 2018, pp. 59–97.
[12]
R. Dobbe, T. K. Gilbert, and Y. Mintz, Hard choices in artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 300, p. 103555, 2021.
DOI
[13]
J. Steinbrenner, Wertung/wert, in Ästhetische Grundbegriffe, vol. 6, K. Barck, M. Fontius, D. Schlenstedt, B. Steinwachs, and F. Wolfzettel, eds. Stuttgart, Germany: J. B. Metzler, 2005, pp. 588–617.
DOI
[14]
W. H. Werkmeister, Historical Spectrum of Value Theories, Volume I: The German-Language Group. Lincoln, NE, USA: Johnsen Publishing Company, 1970.
[15]
C. Bouglé, The Evolution of Values, translated by H. S. Sellars. New York, NY, USA: Henry Holt, 1926.
[16]
T. Parsons, The place of ultimate values in sociological theory, International Journal of Ethics, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 282–316, 1935.
DOI
[17]
R. Benedict, Patterns of Culture. Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin, 1959.
[18]
E. Spranger, Types of Men: The Psychology and Ethics of Personality, translated by P. J. W. Pigors. Halle, Germany: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1928.
[19]

A. Miles, The (re)genesis of values: Examining the importance of values for action, American Sociological Review, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 680–704, 2015.
DOI Google Scholar
[20]

J. L. Martin, and A. Lembo, On the other side of values, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 52–98, 2020.
DOI Google Scholar
[21]

S. Vaisey, Welcome to the real world: Escaping the sociology of culture and cognition, Sociological Forum, vol. 36, no. S1, pp. 1297–1315, 2021.
DOI Google Scholar
[22]
T. K. Gilbert and Y. Mintz, Epistemic therapy for bias in automated decision-making, in Proc. 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Honolulu, HI, USA, 2019, pp. 61–67.
DOI
[23]
A. C. Kozlowski, M. Taddy, and J. A. Evans, The geometry of culture: Analyzing the meanings of class through word embeddings, Am. Soc. Rev., vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 905–949, 2019.
DOI
[24]
A. Voyer, Z. D. Kline, and M. Danton, Symbols of class: A computational analysis of class distinction-making through etiquette, 1922–2017, Poetics, vol. 94, p. 101734, 2022.
DOI
[25]
H. Gonen and Y. Goldberg, Lipstick on a pig: Debiasing methods cover up systematic gender biases in word embeddings but do not remove them, in Proc. 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2019, pp. 609–614.
DOI
[26]

S. H. Schwartz, Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 1–65, 1992.
DOI Google Scholar
[27]
L. P. Argyle, E. C. Busby, N. Fulda, J. R. Gubler, C. Rytting, and D. Wingate, Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples, Polit. Anal., doi: 10.1017/pan.2023.2.
DOI
[28]
J. Hartmann, J. Schwenzow, and M. Witte, The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT’s pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation, arXiv preprint arXiv: 2301.01768, 2023.
DOI
[29]

J. Sonnett, Ambivalence, indifference, distinction: A comparative netfield analysis of implicit musical boundaries, Poetics, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 38–53, 2016.
DOI Google Scholar
[30]
S. Santurkar, E. Durmus, F. Ladhak, C. Lee, P. Liang, and T. Hashimoto, Whose opinions do language models reflect? arXiv preprint arXiv: 2303.17548, 2023.
File
JSC2023-0012_ESM.pdf (1.4 MB)
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 23 March 2023
Revised: 31 May 2023
Accepted: 01 June 2023
Published: 30 March 2023
Issue date: March 2023

Copyright

© The author(s) 2023.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgment

The idea for this exploration initially came from Austin Kozlowski, who also gave encouragement and incisive comments on this draft. I am grateful to Hyunku Kwon for aid with additional analyses, and to reviewers and the editors for comments that increased the cogency of this contribution.

Rights and permissions

The articles published in this open access journal are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Return