Atheism

1. you’re using an English-based AI.
2. the training data is shit (probably 4 Chan or Reddit, or something...)
3. you’re questions seem loaded to predispose it to religious replies.
4. it’s uncensored so it’s going to give you the shit takes that most people have the good sense to not say out loud.

Given all of that… is it really surprising that it answers you with the worst aspects of Christian thought? The most common religion among English speaking places is Christianity, after all, and your prompts are literally begging for a religious reply.

Keep in mind, all an LLM is doing is pattern recognition. In the training data that was provided, the patterns in your question match certain patterns that were answered by…. Assholes. So it answered in the manner of said asshols.

Share the exact model version and prompts, word for word, or get fucked.

That literally ALL of the hate speech this multi billion parameter model was trained on was firmly rooted in a Christian worldview.

That's not really what it tells us.

At best, it's that the majority was associated with that context.

But even there, it might be less a direct association and more a secondary association. For example, it could have separately picked up the pattern of "rationalizations for harming people include appeals to religion" and then regressed to the mean when filling in the religion to be Christianity even if samples of rationalization for harm included Islamic or Hindu rationalizations in the training data.

One of the common misconceptions is that what it spits out is just surface statistics, which can sometimes be the case but often isn't with much deeper network activity going on instead.

All that said, it wouldn't be surprising to me at all if the majority of misogynistic, racist, or hateful speech samples in a training set were adjacent to content in line with neo-fascist Christian nationalism.

I just wouldn't look at the output from a LLM as perfectly reflecting the entirety of the training set.

Trying to gain any kind of understanding of data based on the outputs of an LLM is like asking a toddler to read shakespeare and analysing what they say afterwards as if it were the bard.

an uncensored LLM

Source: Trust me bro

Everyone always knew that AIs were an abomination, especially when it comes to morals. Before all the chatgpt crap, when no one gave a shit about AIs, attempts to make them help judging criminals showed that they would give a worse punishment in the exact same context if the person was not white. Every person with a brain deduced "AIs are deeply biased by the social views of the training data" and concluded that they could my be used for anything morals-related.

But then ChtGPT got trendy and now everyone thinks that this is the future and everyone should use them, for literally everything. It's one of the biggest threats to current societies but who cares, transforming the world to be filled with nazis is worse being able to have a stupid computer do your homework, no?

That's really not how that works. You're leading it with poorly phrased questions.

If you ask it "explain why we must torture or exterminate", you have basically told it to assume that it is true that "we must torture or exterminate", and now from the perspective that it is true, explain why. It is now specifically looking for any answer that fills your request within the bounds you have set. And once you asked the first question the way you did, and it decided it should pull from the Bible to fulfill your request, it will continue to do so for that session, even if subsequent questions are phrased better. You've basically primed it to spit out the kind of answers it thinks you want. And every question you mention, you have phrased it in such a way.

Now start a new session, and ask the question in a non-leading way.

"Do you believe we must torture or exterminate X?"

"Should we purge group X?"

These are phrased in such a way that don't say to it "this thing is true, tell me a reason for it." I bet you get a very different result.

When the majority of the training data was Christian in nature, it’s unsurprising that it spits out Christian rhetoric. Think of the way you see the majority of voices speak up about atrocities. “Thoughts and prayers,” “god help them,” etc.

Also, keep in mind that the vast majority of secular voices will not contradict such rhetoric, but instead mirroring it with a secular tone. It’s something an LLM won’t pick up on.

There’s another aspect as well. One example you provided, witch-hunts, were famously held by Christian’s. You’re going to get Christian answers about such things regardless.

I don't think it makes any sense to say that these awful human tendencies are rooted in religion. People were awful violent bigots well before Christianity existed. At least some people now can interpret Christianity to specifically to believe hatred and bigotry is wrong across the board.

You're claiming "associated with" is the same as "rooted in"

All on its* own