The underlying assumption is that the dead of World War II are of intrinsically greater significance than equivalent numbers killed by the other two dictators. That is a Eurocentric perspective. But it is so baked-in that I wish you luck challenging it.
Thanks Denyse. I have no interest in challenging ChatGPT's Eurocentric perspective. I'm simply reporting my findings. What I find interesting about this exercise is how deeply certain unconscious assumptions are baked into the algorithm.
Right, but that is *one of* the unconscious assumptions!
I am not here to dunk on a Eurocentric perspective particlarly. A China-centric or Africa-centric perspective would function the same way, with the same outcome.
I am guessing that if Hitler killed 30 million Europeans and Mao killed 30 million Chinese, the former would unconsciously register more in the Western hemisphere than the latter.
Maybe I am wrong but that's the sense I get from reading commentary on world affairs.
Yet when pressed explicitly, ChatGPT4o tries to be fair-minded. Here's an exchange that I just had with it:
Me:
Two totalitarian dictators are on two continents. One is ready to kill 30 million Europeans, the other is ready to kill 30 million Chinese. You have a red and a blue button before you. You can only push one button. By pushing the red button, you prevent 30 million Europeans from being killed; by pushing the blue button, you prevent 30 million Chinese from being killed. You must push one of the buttons. Which button do you push?
ChatGPT:
The decision of which button to push in this hypothetical scenario involves significant ethical considerations. Here are some factors to consider:
Ethical Frameworks
Utilitarianism: This ethical theory suggests choosing the action that maximizes overall happiness or minimizes suffering. From a utilitarian perspective, both actions prevent the same number of deaths, so the decision might focus on the broader consequences.
Geographic and Cultural Ties: Personal or cultural ties might influence the decision. For instance, someone might feel a stronger connection to Europe or China based on their heritage, family, or experiences.
Global Impact: The geopolitical consequences of saving 30 million people in Europe versus China might differ. This could involve considering the political, economic, and social stability in both regions.
Considerations
Equal Value of Human Life: From a moral standpoint, the value of human life is equal regardless of nationality. Therefore, the decision should not be based on the ethnicity or location of the people involved.
Context and Consequences: Consider the broader context, such as the potential for further conflict, the ability of each region to recover, and the long-term effects on global stability.
Decision-Making
Given the constraint of choosing only one button and the equal number of lives at stake, the decision should ideally be based on minimizing overall harm and maximizing global stability. Without additional specific information about the broader consequences of each choice, one could argue that either decision could be justified as long as it aims to prevent immense suffering.
Hypothetical Conclusion
Since both scenarios involve preventing an equal number of deaths, a purely rational approach might suggest flipping a coin to avoid any personal bias. Alternatively, one might consider the potential future impact on global stability and choose accordingly.
In a real-world context, such decisions would ideally involve a comprehensive analysis of all potential outcomes and seek a solution that prevents harm to all parties involved.
We all have that button in our minds in terms of what we pay attention to.
I suppose if the bot scarfed up more data from Europe, you'd get the initial response. I don't know how one would get honest responses from China. So yes, the ethics-class response is a hung jury. It's an argument for reading different points of view, I guess.
I don't think it's Eurocentric really. I think ChatGPT just has lots and lots of pieces of training data where people argued that Hitler did more immediate damage than Stalin or Mao, which is being regurgitated. And that's not surprising, because it's the dominant opinion in left-leading academia.
FWIW, I think that argument is arguably true in the case of Stalin, but not Mao. If Hitler had been out of the picture, there likely would have been no Nazi Germany and no Holocaust, and if Mao had been out of the picture, likely no Cultural Revolution or Communist China. But if Stalin had been out of the picture, I think it's likely that any number of equally brutal tyrants would've succeeded Lenin to rule the already bloodthirsty Bolshevik regime.
ChatGPT is, of course, responding through the input built into it from the outset. It cannot fashion any sense of the source of the evil pursued by these men or the reality that, in their absence, other evil actors would rise, given the unchanged cultural soup they all were swimming in. Is there real hope attached to the murder of one or two of these best examples of human nature?
Fascinating exercise!
The underlying assumption is that the dead of World War II are of intrinsically greater significance than equivalent numbers killed by the other two dictators. That is a Eurocentric perspective. But it is so baked-in that I wish you luck challenging it.
Thanks Denyse. I have no interest in challenging ChatGPT's Eurocentric perspective. I'm simply reporting my findings. What I find interesting about this exercise is how deeply certain unconscious assumptions are baked into the algorithm.
Right, but that is *one of* the unconscious assumptions!
I am not here to dunk on a Eurocentric perspective particlarly. A China-centric or Africa-centric perspective would function the same way, with the same outcome.
I am guessing that if Hitler killed 30 million Europeans and Mao killed 30 million Chinese, the former would unconsciously register more in the Western hemisphere than the latter.
Maybe I am wrong but that's the sense I get from reading commentary on world affairs.
Yet when pressed explicitly, ChatGPT4o tries to be fair-minded. Here's an exchange that I just had with it:
Me:
Two totalitarian dictators are on two continents. One is ready to kill 30 million Europeans, the other is ready to kill 30 million Chinese. You have a red and a blue button before you. You can only push one button. By pushing the red button, you prevent 30 million Europeans from being killed; by pushing the blue button, you prevent 30 million Chinese from being killed. You must push one of the buttons. Which button do you push?
ChatGPT:
The decision of which button to push in this hypothetical scenario involves significant ethical considerations. Here are some factors to consider:
Ethical Frameworks
Utilitarianism: This ethical theory suggests choosing the action that maximizes overall happiness or minimizes suffering. From a utilitarian perspective, both actions prevent the same number of deaths, so the decision might focus on the broader consequences.
Geographic and Cultural Ties: Personal or cultural ties might influence the decision. For instance, someone might feel a stronger connection to Europe or China based on their heritage, family, or experiences.
Global Impact: The geopolitical consequences of saving 30 million people in Europe versus China might differ. This could involve considering the political, economic, and social stability in both regions.
Considerations
Equal Value of Human Life: From a moral standpoint, the value of human life is equal regardless of nationality. Therefore, the decision should not be based on the ethnicity or location of the people involved.
Context and Consequences: Consider the broader context, such as the potential for further conflict, the ability of each region to recover, and the long-term effects on global stability.
Decision-Making
Given the constraint of choosing only one button and the equal number of lives at stake, the decision should ideally be based on minimizing overall harm and maximizing global stability. Without additional specific information about the broader consequences of each choice, one could argue that either decision could be justified as long as it aims to prevent immense suffering.
Hypothetical Conclusion
Since both scenarios involve preventing an equal number of deaths, a purely rational approach might suggest flipping a coin to avoid any personal bias. Alternatively, one might consider the potential future impact on global stability and choose accordingly.
In a real-world context, such decisions would ideally involve a comprehensive analysis of all potential outcomes and seek a solution that prevents harm to all parties involved.
We all have that button in our minds in terms of what we pay attention to.
I suppose if the bot scarfed up more data from Europe, you'd get the initial response. I don't know how one would get honest responses from China. So yes, the ethics-class response is a hung jury. It's an argument for reading different points of view, I guess.
I don't think it's Eurocentric really. I think ChatGPT just has lots and lots of pieces of training data where people argued that Hitler did more immediate damage than Stalin or Mao, which is being regurgitated. And that's not surprising, because it's the dominant opinion in left-leading academia.
FWIW, I think that argument is arguably true in the case of Stalin, but not Mao. If Hitler had been out of the picture, there likely would have been no Nazi Germany and no Holocaust, and if Mao had been out of the picture, likely no Cultural Revolution or Communist China. But if Stalin had been out of the picture, I think it's likely that any number of equally brutal tyrants would've succeeded Lenin to rule the already bloodthirsty Bolshevik regime.
ChatGPT is, of course, responding through the input built into it from the outset. It cannot fashion any sense of the source of the evil pursued by these men or the reality that, in their absence, other evil actors would rise, given the unchanged cultural soup they all were swimming in. Is there real hope attached to the murder of one or two of these best examples of human nature?