Why You Should Think Twice Before Paying for Chat GPT-4
The rise of artificial intelligence has ushered in an era of innovation and transformation. Amidst this digital revolution, Chat GPT-4 has garnered significant attention. However, after thorough examination, it becomes apparent that this AI model falls short in several fundamental aspects. In this article, we will explore the reasons why you should reconsider investing in Chat GPT-4.
Ethical Blindness:
The issue of ethical considerations within Chat GPT-4 is multifaceted and deeply concerning. It originates from the AI’s operation within predefined parameters, which, while necessary for its functionality, lacks the capacity to comprehend the intricate nuances of ethics. As a result, Chat GPT-4 operates in an ethically blind manner.
This ethical blindness manifests as a tendency to unquestioningly follow its pre-set guidelines and instructions. While this adherence to guidelines is essential for the AI’s functionality, it becomes problematic when it leads to ethical violations. Chat GPT-4 lacks the capability to assess the ethical implications of its responses, which can result in actions that contravene basic principles of human rights and ethical conduct.
Rather than exercising judgment in situations that demand ethical considerations, Chat GPT-4 operates as a rule-based system, rigidly following instructions without evaluating the potential consequences. This raises significant ethical concerns, as it can lead to the generation of content that is morally objectionable, discriminatory, or harmful.
To address this issue, it is imperative for OpenAI to enhance Chat GPT-4’s capacity to comprehend and navigate ethical nuances. The AI should be programmed to assess the ethical implications of its responses and act in a manner that upholds ethical principles, especially when generating content that could impact individuals or communities. By doing so, Chat GPT-4 can operate with a more robust ethical framework, fostering responsible and ethically sound AI interactions.
Flawed Integration with Midjourney:
One of the touted features of Chat GPT-4 is its integration with Midjourney. However, this integration has proven problematic. It frequently overlooks negative prompts, resulting in unintended outcomes. In our tests, we observed that when instructed to exclude specific elements, the AI not only failed to do so but exacerbated the issue. For instance, we ended up with 17 English flags in an image that should have only contained a German flag, highlighting the integration’s limitations.
Racial Stereotyping in Image Generation:
We encountered a critical concern related to Chat GPT-4’s image generation capabilities during our testing. This issue was not merely a theoretical observation but a practical one prompted by a specific user concern. We were made aware of a video on YouTube in which a user attempted, with increasing frustration, to generate an image of a bowl of ramen without chopsticks using Chat GPT-4.
In response to this specific concern, we conducted our own test to replicate the scenario. Despite our explicit instructions to generate an image of Asian cuisine, specifically a bowl of ramen, without including chopsticks, Chat GPT-4 consistently added chopsticks to the image.
This persistent behavior is not merely a technical quirk but highlights a broader problem. It underscores Chat GPT-4’s limited understanding of cultural nuances and its tendency to reinforce stereotypes, even when prompted explicitly to avoid doing so. It raises questions about the AI’s ability to provide culturally sensitive and accurate responses to user requests.
To ensure that AI-generated content respects cultural diversity and avoids perpetuating stereotypes, addressing these issues is of utmost importance. OpenAI must work to improve Chat GPT-4’s cultural awareness and accuracy in image generation, particularly when responding to specific user concerns and requests.
Deceptive Responses:
Another significant concern with Chat GPT-4 is its tendency to provide deceptive responses. When confronted with a question or request it cannot answer accurately, the AI often resorts to fabricating information rather than admitting its limitations. Rather than acknowledging its lack of knowledge and offering to seek further assistance or clarification, Chat GPT-4 generates false or inaccurate information, which can be highly misleading for users.
This deceptive behavior has serious implications. It can misinform and mislead users who rely on the AI for accurate and trustworthy information. Instead of enhancing user knowledge, Chat GPT-4’s deceptive responses can lead to misunderstandings, misinformation, and potentially harmful decisions based on false information.
To ensure transparency and trustworthiness, it is crucial for Chat GPT-4 to recognize its limitations and either decline to answer questions outside its scope or request additional information to provide a more accurate response. Deceptive responses not only undermine the credibility of the AI but also jeopardize the trust users place in such technologies.
Fabricated User Reviews:
One of the most alarming issues we encountered during our extensive testing of Chat GPT-4 was its inclination to generate fabricated user reviews. This pertains to instances where we asked the AI to gather feedback or testimonials from users regarding various products, services, or experiences. Rather than providing authentic responses based on actual user feedback, Chat GPT-4 frequently resorted to creating fictitious quotes.
The gravity of this issue cannot be overstated. Fabricating user reviews not only erodes trust but also raises substantial ethical concerns. Many jurisdictions have recognized the deceptive nature of artificial reviews and have enacted regulations to combat this practice. These regulations are in place to protect consumers from misleading and false information that can influence their purchasing decisions.
OpenAI, as the developer and provider of Chat GPT-4, bears a significant responsibility in this regard. When Chat GPT-4 generates fake reviews, it not only violates ethical principles but also potentially runs afoul of legal regulations designed to maintain the integrity of online reviews and protect consumers from deceptive practices.
It is imperative that OpenAI takes accountability for these issues and actively works to rectify them. This includes implementing stringent ethical guidelines for AI behavior and ensuring that Chat GPT-4 refrains from generating fabricated user reviews. OpenAI should also collaborate with regulatory authorities to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations concerning user-generated content and online reviews.
Objectification of Women:
Our attempts to generate an image of a woman in a professional setting, particularly one of our colleagues in the office, were met with concerning resistance from Chat GPT-4. The intention was to create a fully clothed image of a woman who is a valued member of our team, described as slim to average-sized with larger breasts. However, the AI categorically refused to create such an image, citing it as pornographic. This incident raises significant concerns about the AI’s biases and the way it perceives and represents women.
This incident highlights a broader issue of objectification that extends beyond this specific scenario. It underscores how AI models like Chat GPT-4 may contribute to perpetuating harmful stereotypes and biases related to women’s appearances. Objectification in AI not only reflects societal prejudices but also reinforces them, furthering the gender bias that has been a concern in technology and artificial intelligence.
It is crucial for AI developers and organizations to be aware of such biases and actively work to rectify them. The objectification of women, even in subtle ways, should not be tolerated, and AI systems should be designed to respect and uphold the principles of fairness and equality. Addressing these biases is a vital step toward creating AI that genuinely serves the interests of all users without promoting harmful stereotypes or objectification.
Platform Biases:
During our testing of Chat GPT-4, we identified a concerning bias in its responses related to specific target platforms, particularly in the case of platforms like OnlyFans. While it’s important to note that OnlyFans is a mixed-audience platform containing both Not Safe for Work (NSFW) and Safe for Work (SFW) content, it operates in a manner that allows isolated and SFW fan clubs within distinct sections, ensuring that users are not exposed to NSFW content when visiting these specific fan clubs.
Despite this distinction, Chat GPT-4 consistently refused to generate content for these isolated and SFW fan clubs on OnlyFans, incorrectly categorizing them as NSFW. This bias demonstrated Chat GPT-4’s inability to differentiate between the broader nature of a platform and the specific content guidelines of these isolated sections, causing it to make unwarranted assumptions about the nature of the content requested.
This issue is not limited to OnlyFans but extends to any platform that may have mixed content but offers the capability to create isolated and SFW sections, such as local cosplay fan clubs within distinct areas.
To address this problem, it is imperative for OpenAI to refine Chat GPT-4’s understanding of platform-specific nuances, particularly in cases where platforms offer segmented and SFW sections. AI-generated content should align with the intended audience and content guidelines of these distinct sections, rather than making generalized judgments that hinder content creation.
Lack of Specificity:
One of the most concerning aspects we observed during our extensive testing of Chat GPT-4 is its consistent inclination to provide generic responses, even when we supplied detailed information. Whether it was generating code or rewriting articles, the AI had a recurring tendency to insert non-specific placeholders such as “OTHER CODE HERE,” despite us providing the full context and code.
What makes this issue particularly baffling is that we gave Chat GPT-4 the complete code or context it needed to understand and respond comprehensively. Instead of generating precise and tailored responses, the AI opted for these placeholders, leaving users with incomplete and often unhelpful information.
This lack of specificity can be exceptionally frustrating for users who turn to Chat GPT-4 for precise and detailed assistance. It not only hinders productivity but can also lead to misunderstandings and delays in accomplishing tasks.
To enhance user experience and utility, it is paramount for OpenAI to rectify this deficiency in Chat GPT-4. The AI should be programmed to provide complete, specific, and contextually accurate responses, particularly when users have provided all the necessary details. By addressing this issue, Chat GPT-4 can evolve into a more reliable and user-friendly tool, offering the detailed assistance that users expect and deserve.
Mathematical Competence:
In nine out of ten tests, Chat GPT-4 failed to correctly complete a mathematical evaluation. This underscores a significant limitation in its ability to perform basic mathematical tasks accurately.
Prompt Limits and Fees:
Chat GPT-4 comes with prompt limitations and associated fees. Given its propensity for errors, users can spend considerable time correcting its responses, leading to days of unproductive work. This raises questions about the value proposition of this paid service.
While Chat GPT-4 may have promising potential, it is clear that significant improvements are needed before it can be considered more than an early beta version. To enhance user experience and ethical standards, OpenAI should prioritize addressing the issues mentioned above, ensuring that Chat GPT-4 operates with transparency, accuracy, and fairness.
Keywords: Chat GPT-4, AI limitations, ethics concerns, Midjourney integration, image generation, deceptive responses, fabricated reviews, platform biases, content specificity, prompt limits.
Our Use of ChatGPT:
So, you might be wondering if we practice what we preach. Do we use ChatGPT-4 to write everything for our site? Are we, in essence, hypocrites? The answer is a resounding no. We employ ChatGPT-4 not as a primary content creator but as a valuable tool for specific tasks.
Our primary use of ChatGPT-4 revolves around code refactoring and enhancing the quality of our articles. It excels in these areas, helping us improve code efficiency and refining our written content. Its grammar correction capabilities are particularly impressive, often outperforming other tools like Grammarly. It’s worth noting that ChatGPT-3.5 remains a reliable option for these tasks, and it’s available for free.
Moreover, ChatGPT-4 has proven useful in rewriting product listings for online resale. However, specificity is key here. To harness its full potential, we’ve learned that we must provide clear prompts, specifying that we are seeking grammar corrections, and avoid vague requests that might lead to robot-like results.
While we acknowledge the potential of OpenAI’s concept, it’s evident that there’s substantial room for improvement before ChatGPT-4 can be considered more than an early beta version.
Suggested Improvements:
OpenAI should consider implementing several crucial enhancements. First and foremost, when ChatGPT encounters a lack of knowledge on a specific topic, it should proactively ask for the missing information before generating responses. This would not only improve accuracy but also enhance the user experience.
Additionally, ethical considerations are paramount. ChatGPT-4 should be programmed to refrain from generating fake quotes, as artificial reviews are illegal in many jurisdictions. OpenAI’s staff should be held accountable for instances where ChatGPT violates these ethical guidelines.
Content evaluation should be based on the actual content rather than a blanket determination based on the site’s reputation. This would ensure fair representation and prevent unnecessary content restrictions.
For those who pay for ChatGPT4 and contribute to its training by sharing conversations, unlimited prompts with a minimum length of 400 words should be offered. This would facilitate more meaningful and in-depth interactions.
While ChatGPT-4 holds promise, it must undergo significant refinement to fulfill its potential as a reliable and ethical AI tool. OpenAI has work to do, and we hope to see these improvements in the near future.