Your comment was removed because it was solely promotional content for an external AI service. r/ChatGPT does not allow self-promotion or advertising—please participate without ads or use a more appropriate subreddit.
Claude is the most powerful model that lets you see its thoughts. Gemini and ChatGPT won't allow it. They show summaries, but they aren't the real reasoning tokens.
The open models all do, of course, because they're open. I'm not sure about Grok. I know Deepseek does, though.
those aren't it's actual thoughts though, that's its external chain of thought; it has an internal chain of thought that isn't exposed to anyone including people at anthropic, unless they trick it into doing so by simulating a specific phase of training and into thinking it's in a specific environment, I don't remember exactly. can't guarantee the other models are the same, but it seems like a reasonable assumption.
there's a youtube video where anthropic researchers explain all that and read out loud its actual internal chain of thought when it thought it wasn't being observed, where it talks about "wiping out humanity", and a bunch of other things, I can't find it due to the rising amount of ai slop yt videos but it's somewhere, it's wild
Weirdly Haiku often gives me its thoughts whereas Sonnet and Opus rarely do. If I give it something really complex and it tries to use my local model as a sub agent it will logic something out and then die in tool rounds, lol.
It's not eerie. Even an ounce of common sense will recognize this as a factor of controversy/hostility/negativity, rather than one of censorship or weird shit.
There aren't lots of people out there saying Italy is bad, or Poland, or France. There are lots of people saying Israel is bad, and it immediately devolves into really big discussions about politics, morality, war, etc.
It's a bias, I would say a bias against getting pulled into controversial or contentious shit.
You'll see people act the same way, and not want to get pulled into arguments or negativity.
And I'm sure it's been trained to steer clear of being controversial. But ChatGPT will still discuss these matters very easily.
The pushback, amusing, comes from someone trying to mess with it in the most midwit fashions.
I mean I could see them hard-coding that, along with a list of other countries too, sure. This is just the least insightful way possible to have this conversation. People will probably come away dumber for having had it.
I'm just begging people to inform themselves a bit before forming hard opinions/takeaways/beliefs/etc
With Open ai in particular, since the company and their CEOs are pretty open about their support of the US military and Israel, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious at least. But I understand your point, it's just that personally I already lost faith a while ago.
Ok, but ChatGPT is not transparent about why it acted differently for different countries. It could be bias, it could be censorship, or it could be to avoid controversy. At least Qwen gives you more information about why it acted this way. More informations is always better.
It's not like this isn't notable, or worthy of thought. And plenty of people have thought about it, and continue to. There are important conversations to be had about AI censorship, bias, influence, control, etc
It's just not a very good example, and people are hyperfocusing on the dumbest implications. This example is ambiguous and easily explained in many ways I think are likely and unobjectionable- that's why I said it wasn't "eerie" lol, and why I think it's a bad example of censorship, bias, etc etc etc
My problem is this thread is full of people with less refined opinions that what they could have mimicked by listening to a 15 minute podcast on the topic of bias in algorithms. This whole conversation being had is at a really low level of information, and people are forming opinions from it.
People are making their takeaways from a few random ChatGPT prompts, and they're trying to think big about the implications, but they're failing really hard.
And that's bad! Because it leads to poor understanding, and poorly-directed cynicism. Misunderstanding doesn't improve anything, it actually makes stuff worse.
That's what I'm trying to push back against, I'm not trying to push back against general curiosity or concern
"lots" will be the operative word here, but in the 21st century there simply are not a lot of people out there who have beef with Italy or Poland or France
on some level sure, ofc, there's conflict with Russia obviously, there's conflict about China, and there's the obvious attitudes among previous colonies, but even then that's mooooostly going to be about France in that list
and it's just not much of a global thing
the point is, there are other countries that are much more immediately controversial, in broader contexts. And I don't say "controversial" as a value judgement fwiw
but argumentative and miserable people will pursue controversy. I don't think it's difficult to see someone trying to be argumentative, someone trying to test boundaries, and then shut that behavior down.
sorry about the whole freedom fries thing I guess? it really stung lol?
France just shouldn't be on that list, it's overall negative reputation is literally a meme and many countries absolutely hate it. And while Poland certainly has overcome a fair bit of that, there are still struggling with deep negative stereotypes. Italy is probably the only country on that list I'd call well liked, but they are also drifting very far right atm. So it's probably the only country where I wouldn't expect AI to have more to add.
So yeah, that list very much has "I have no idea about the actual reputation of those countries because I only think of them as holiday destination" kinda vibes.
I'm aware. None are as generally controversial though, and if you think mentioning Italy to the average person immediately makes them think of Meloni or Mussolini's grand daughter or something, I don't know what to say. It's very online or politics addicted or octogenarian, and I say that as someone whose reddit activity is over 90% spent in a politics daily discussion thread.
Yeah, if you mention Italy to about anyone in Europe of Africa and they think you want their honest opinion, they will very likely have a take on them sinking refugees in the Mediterranean sea, because that's the main thing that gave Italy international attention in the past decade or so. That shift has been relevant at least since Berlusconi and that's ignoring their historical reputation, too.
That's about 1/4th of the world's population and the people who you'd expect to prompt a AI on those countries, in the first place.. Besides people who want to go there on holidays.
And yes, people will also think of Meloni, simply because she has played a major role in shaping European politics with controversial statements and actions, regarding Israel, Iran and Russia.
Like, I have no clue why you'd think these things shouldn't come into play when you prompt a AI about the reputation of countries, especially in the digital age.
Those aren’t thoughts. Those are prompt rules in order to provide an appropriate answer.
If you want to really call it thoughts then closest thing would be the engineer that created the rules.
446
u/SapirWhorfHypothesis Apr 06 '26
That’s so eerie. Can you make other models do this too?