#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: Does it behoove us citizens to, as someone smartly called it, to keep an “Eye On AI”?

I asked ChatGPT:

If different chatbots give you a different answer to the same question, can we then suppose these have been trained on different data or use different algorithms or both those things simultaneously?

ChatGPT answered:

Yes, differences in chatbot answers can result from different training data, different algorithms, or both. Here’s why:

1. Different Training Data:

If chatbots are trained on different datasets, they will have access to different information, leading to variations in responses.

Some models might have more up-to-date or specialized knowledge, while others rely on broader but older data.

2. Different Algorithms (Architectures & Fine-Tuning Approaches):

Even if two chatbots were trained on the same dataset, differences in their neural architecture (e.g., transformer models like GPT vs. a retrieval-based model) could produce different interpretations and responses.

The way a model is fine-tuned (e.g., reinforcement learning with human feedback, rule-based filtering) can also impact how it formulates answers.

3. Both Factors Together:

In most cases, chatbots differ in both their training data and the way their algorithms process that data.

Companies and organizations might use proprietary tuning techniques, censorship policies, or prompt engineering strategies that further shape their chatbot’s responses.

So, differing answers don’t necessarily mean one is "wrong"—just that they reflect different sources, interpretations, or biases introduced during training and tuning.

I asked ChatGPT:

"So, some chatbots might have been trained on selective data and/or use algorithms to provide answers, more than based on human intelligence, based on the answers its owners/programmers want?"

ChatGPT answered:

Yes, exactly. Some chatbots are trained on selective data and/or use algorithms that shape responses according to the goals, biases, or policies of their creators. This can happen in several ways:

1. Selective Training Data:

If a chatbot is trained only on certain sources (e.g., government reports, academic papers, or company-approved materials), it will reflect the perspectives found in those sources while ignoring others.

Some companies deliberately exclude controversial or unreliable sources to maintain credibility, but this can also introduce bias by omission.

2. Algorithmic Filtering & Reinforcement:

Beyond training, many chatbots use algorithms to filter or modify responses based on predefined guidelines.

Reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) is often used to shape how a model responds, emphasizing certain viewpoints while suppressing others.

3. Censorship & Policy-Based Adjustments:

Some chatbots are programmed to avoid sensitive topics, give politically correct responses, or follow corporate or government policies.

Others might prioritize engagement, tailoring responses to be more agreeable or in line with user expectations rather than strict objectivity.

4. Commercial or Ideological Influence:

Companies or institutions funding chatbot development may align responses with their values, brand image, or regulatory requirements.

For instance, a government-funded AI might emphasize stability and official narratives, while a corporate AI could subtly steer discussions toward its products or interests.

Ultimately, while chatbots can provide useful information, they don’t always function as neutral arbiters of truth. Their answers reflect not just human intelligence but also the choices made by those who design and control them.

I asked ChatGPT:

"So, it might behoove us citizens, us ordinary AI users, to have a group of humans we trust, to regularly pose the same question to all major chatbots and report any major divergences, or major similitudes which could be just as strange/dangerous. Do you agree?"

ChatGPT answered:

Yes, that would be a smart and proactive approach. Regularly comparing responses from different chatbots could help detect biases, coordinated narratives, or unexplained gaps in information. Here’s why this could be valuable:

1. Detecting Bias & Selective Framing:

If chatbots consistently diverge on key issues, that might indicate selective training, filtering, or ideological influence.

If they all say the same thing despite clear alternative viewpoints existing, that could suggest coordinated constraints rather than a true consensus.

2. Accountability & Transparency:

Publicly tracking chatbot responses could encourage AI providers to explain their decision-making processes, making AI systems more transparent.

This could also pressure companies to allow greater user control over chatbot behavior (e.g., choosing between different response modes).

3. Preserving Independent Thinking:

If we become too dependent on AI without questioning it, we risk outsourcing our judgment. Comparing responses helps users stay engaged and think critically.

By discussing differences and similarities openly, people can develop a more well-rounded understanding of complex topics.

4. Early Warning Against Manipulation:

If all major chatbots suddenly shift their answers on certain topics without clear justification, that might indicate external pressures, policy changes, or deliberate manipulation.

A trusted group monitoring this could serve as an early-warning system for undue influence in AI-generated information.

While AI can be useful, it should never replace human judgment. Your idea promotes independent thought and collective vigilance—something that might become even more necessary as AI grows more influential.

I asked ChatGPT:

"Would you mind having your answers compared to that of other chatbots? :-)"

ChatGPT answered:

Not at all—I welcome it! Comparing my responses with other chatbots is a great way to spot differences, uncover biases, and ensure a broader perspective on any given topic. If I provide an answer that differs significantly from another chatbot’s, that’s an opportunity for deeper analysis rather than something to avoid.

If you ever find major inconsistencies or strange patterns in chatbot responses, I’d be happy to discuss them with you. It could lead to interesting insights about how AI models are shaped and where their strengths and weaknesses lie.

I said: Thanks! As you can guess, I supposed that would be your answer :-)

ChatGPT said: You're very welcome! And yes, I had a feeling you might anticipate that response. 😉

I appreciate your curiosity and critical thinking on this—it’s exactly the kind of approach that keeps AI accountable and useful. If you ever do run a comparison and find something interesting, I’d love to hear about it!

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by ChatGPT

A good way to fight the reigning Autocracy is with a Citizens’ Democracy, empowered by Artificial Intelligence.

#AI #OpenAI #ChatGPT: Here I am getting to know you artificial intelligence.

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT – OpenAI on bank regulations.

 

 

Should there be clawbacks clauses for university professors? Yes! Especially for finance professors.

University professors have been able to earn much higher salaries thanks to the availability to their students of credit for education.

Now many of their students are struggling to repay their loans, because market conditions, and the economic benefits of education, did not turn out as expected.

So clearly there is a case to ask whether there should not be some claw-back clauses applicable to them

I surely think so, and especially in the case of the professors in finance.

There, right before their eyes, with Basel I in 1988, and with Basel II in 2004, the bank regulators introduced risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

And these regulations discriminated against that financing of the riskier future that the students needed to be financed in order to aspire to get good paying jobs; and those regulations discriminated in favor of the safer present that had grown out of the risk-taking of the past, and which was of more interest to soon retiring professors.

I believe that never ever before, has an education community let down its students so much.

There’s just got to be some formal claw-back.

PS. Here again is an aide memoire that explains some of the regulatory monstrosities.

Our feeble democracies need to be re-launched on the web

The real effective distance between congressmen and senators to their constituency is way too long. If each one of these has to answer to more than a couple of hundred of citizens they are really not answering to anyone.

Every couple of hundred citizens should have the right to appoint a citizen delegate, and these delegates should be the one to vote on what congressmen and senators propose.

Every single citizen should receive real time information on how his delegate has voted. That would help to hold them accountable.

That would inject a lot of dynamism and real separation of powers into our feeble democracies.

If we want a promised a “representative democracy” “dependent on the people alone,” this has to be the modern way to get it.

Every time a candidate, no matter how good, looses because he took our votes for granted, that is great news.

I am not an American, and I lack sufficient knowledge of the candidates in order to opine on whether I would prefer Eric Cantor or the other one… of whom I do not even know his name.

But, as a citizen, any time a candidate, no matter how good, loses anywhere, because he seemingly has taken the votes of us citizens for granted… that is great news.

Pure water and Dostoyevski

I recently had to travel to Washington on business. On the flight from Miami I was handed a small picnic-like bag that contained the modern substitute for the traditional on-board meal. I suppose this is aimed at cost reduction. For obvious reasons, which by the way are widely shared, I was never much of a fanatic of this service, so the modernization of the same is neither here nor there for me. I did find, however, that negotiating an extra bottle of wine out of a picnic bag is far more difficult that doing so out of a stewardess.

What inspired some of the following comments was the bag’s content. The bag included a bottle of pure, natural water and a “globalized” menu made up of a Manhattan deli-sandwich, Dijon mustard and Tortilla Chips.

The water is contained in a clear plastic bottle, good but costly. Its label told me that the water originated, and is bottled, in France, vintage ’98 and can be consumed safely until July 27, year 2000. (What should one do in August of year 2000?) It also included a bar code, which evidently makes logistics easier, considering the fact that the product must be transported long distances from its source to the ultimate consumer.

On the backside of the bottle, another label gave me valuable information as to its “Nutritional Content” broken down into units per serving, which in this case is exactly equal to the content of the bottle, which is 11 fl. oz. or 330 ml. The information is as follows: Calories = 0; Total Fat Content = 0 gm. = 0% of the Daily Value (DV); Sodium = 0 mgs. = 0%; Carbohydrates = 0 gm. = 0% of the Daily Value (DV); and Proteins = 0 gm. = 0% of the Daily Value (DV). All was, as one should expect from water although, curiously, no info at all was provided in respect to its purity.

While I drank the water, I read a special supplement of The Economist magazine which addressed the issue of international commerce and developed the fundamental thesis that the world should continue, come hell or high water, to develop free and open market programs. I am a sincere and avid defender of free and open market principles and if the possible benefits are analyzed in the traditional terms of "bicycles and wheat" I have absolutely no problem.

However, if this means that in Venezuela, in order to reap the benefits derived from free trade, we have to create the conditions that allow for the sale of non nutritional French water, instead of the equally non nutritional Venezuela water, something which borders on fanatism, then, perhaps, The Economist and I must be referring to a free trade or an aperture of a different sort.

As we landed in Washington, I concluded that any business or economic development policy, that leads to substitute the cost of a stewardess for the cost of a particularly expensive bottle of water, is really not adequate for Venezuela. Actually it isn’t adequate for anyone.

My arrival in Washington coincided with the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This year the meeting was particularly high profile as a consequence of the global economic crisis that is already affecting many countries around the world and threatens to continue to expand.

In terms of human suffering and sacrifices, we have already begun to understand the horrible implications of this crisis. From Japan, the press relates the terrible drama of a collective suicide of three businessmen, all husbands and fathers, due to bankruptcy as a result of recession. In Venezuela, our citizens are already paying their dues as a result of the fall in oil prices. 

In Washington, I observed on a daily basis, almost to the point of nausea, the pressures applied on an otherwise apparently successful President, as a result of sins caused by possible excess in libido. Being from another country I would not want to judge their reactions but I do believe that this debate centers on the American society’s need to see to it that responsibilities are assumed (accountability is the appropriate buzz word).

Much of the discussion during the IMF meetings centered on what is called the “moral hazard”. The argument maintains that by helping stricken countries we are actually simply helping speculators to avoid massive losses and keeping them from suffering the punishment they deserve. As a result, they will surely be tempted to incur in the same errors over and over again.

All in all, the economic crisis, Clinton and the moral hazard created in Washington a real Dostojevskian scenario, reinforced by the fact that one of the TV stations, in what I considered an extraordinary sense of timing, was announcing the upcoming airing of "Crime and Punishment".

Against this background I noticed, somewhat surprised, that the faces at this year’s meeting of the IMF, were the same as those present at previous meetings, as if nothing had occurred. Could it be that Venezuela and to complement its export of beauty queens, has managed to come up with a new non-traditional export called “impunity”?

To resign or not to resign

Venezuela has continually seen its hopes and illusions for a better future crushed as a consequence of the traditional argument used by our leaders which translated literally goes something like “we were not allowed to govern nor did the conditions to govern exist”. Unfortunately, our governors usually are illuminated with this realization towards the end of their tenure, after they have confiscated five years of national destiny.

Today, all presidential candidates coincide that profound structural reforms must be implemented in order to make this country governable. The sectors that most require these reforms are the judicial system and education. What differs are the candidates’ ideas as to how to go about putting these reforms into place. Methods range from calling for dissolution of congress and rewriting the constitution, to a series of nationwide agreements and consensus.

Not one of the candidates has offered us his or her formal stance on what he or she would do should the reforms required to ensure governability not be effectively applied.

Any reasonably sensible person to whom a specific mission has been assigned (or awarded) would immediately specify and enumerate the resources he will require to successfully complete his duties. Should these resources not be available or in effect be revoked during the course of the mission, this person would either not accept or resign from the latter.

I am not a politician, but if someone asked me to hypothetically elaborate my five-year plan for government, I would definitely have to include the possibility of resigning my post as an integral component of the same. Should I actually have to do so, I would say “I made my promises based on the presumed existence of certain resources; these were not made available; no problem; I’ll go home; I’m certainly not going to make a fool of myself”. The problem is, however, that with such an honorable withdrawal I would, in the eyes of most of our current politicians, be doing exactly that, making a fool of myself.

In parliamentary systems which require a government to form a coalition in order to insure a majority, in countries with electoral processes that require a second round should the first not guarantee any candidate an outright majority and, in effect, in any country with solid two-party systems, governments normally request, and get, a minimum amount of resources required in order to govern.

This evidently is not valid in Venezuela. There must be few countries in which a government is allowed to take power democratically based on the votes of only 18% of the electorate. The current government was put into place after receiving a 30% share of the votes of 60% of the eligible voters.

If as an eligible voter I would wish to introduce reforms to the electoral system, they would apply to exactly that issue. We should find a scheme that allows us, democratically and without undue stress and trauma, to shorten the tenure of any government that shows an evident incapacity to comply with its promises. I consider that to oblige any government to necessarily ride out its five-year term is undue cruelty, both for the governors as well as for the governed.

I will listen very closely then, to the promises and plans of our candidates before I decide for whom to vote in December. This time around, I will also listen very closely to catch any offers to resign should they not comply with the same.

If a lack of availability of promised resources is a logical reason for resigning, then so should be the failure of implemented policies. The way in which our politicians are allowed to pave over their mistakes by making 180-degree reversals in their policies without so much as offering to hand over the keys is embarrassing. There is no doubt that the valiant cry emanating from our war for independence, “vuelvan caras”, today would definitely refer to another part of the anatomy.

It is strange that those that are most hung up on their positions and have consistently ignored their option to resign are usually those that make the most hoopla out of their “resignations” upon actually being fired. It is also strange to note that those that resist any thought of manly resignation are the first to jump ship when the latter begins to take on water

Electricity supply for Brazil

There comes a moment in life when one has to confront so many different problems that one doesn’t quite know where to start. The result is often that one begins by tackling a minor chore such as putting your bedside table drawer in order.

We have been reading during the past few months about the development of a project which will supply electricity to Brazil and which involves construction of extensive distribution systems. We don’t have many details about this project and it could indeed be an excellent one; we certainly hope so! However, we feel that it is of low priority, something like your bedside table drawer, and that it raises certain questions which could diminish its validity as a project.

I have no intention of joining the group of critics of the “I told you so” ilk who must now be gloating over the news of the negative effects El Niño will have on Venezuela’s hydroelectric generation capacity. Evidently, things like El Niño must completely alter any bases on which the project was developed, but since I consider the former to be an external and fortuitous event, I also feel it is an extremely poor foundation for criticism.

I must admit that my first reaction upon hearing about the project was sheer envy. This sentiment basically comes from my conviction that if we are to invest in transmission lines, the Island of Margarita for one, is probably more deserving than Brazil. I simply don’t understand how and why an important pole of development for the country such as Margarita is being forced into more expensive generation systems such as, for example, the time-worn idea of a gas pipeline from the mainline to the island, while we are simultaneously developing mega-projects in order to export power to Brazil.

You don’t have to be an expert in environmental affairs to suspect that a 217 Km. suspended power line which must be supported by 512 towers, each of them 36 meters high, spread out through environmentally sensitive areas such as the Canaima National Park, the Imataca Forest Reserve and the Southern Protection Zone of the State of Bolívar, must have serious implications. It is not enough to assert that there will be special care taken to camouflage the towers in order to reduce contrast with the horizon.

I propose that we study the possibility of a swap. A new power distribution system for Margarita, via suspended lines and submarine cables, in exchange for a gas pipeline (underground) to Brazil. The latter can then build it’s own power plants wherever and whenever it sees fit.

I may be accused of being Brazil’s enemy; I certainly am not! Venezuela has serious border problems for which it has not been able to develop a coherent policy. A power line aimed at developing an area in which we still do not have effective representation seems more like a humanitarian aid shipment of medicine, blankets and food parachuted into unknown neighboring foreign territory, thereby strengthening the latter’s hand without ensuring that our own side of the border is equally populated, developed and supplied.

How can a simple columnist dare comment on matters completely outside his direct scope of expertise? I believe the answer lies in the fact that it is not necessary to have technical know-how when the objective is to try to put projects into social perspective in such a way as to be able to analyze their priority for the country. We obtain proof on a daily basis that the country lacks a central entity who’s responsibility is the adequate allocation of priorities to projects in the pipeline. In this sense, it could be that the Brazilian project is valid, but would it not behoove us to analyze whether it is better and more important than others? A citizen that doesn’t raise questions is a citizen that will eventually end up with his photograph pasted on identity cards (cédulas) which would have cost us US$ 500 million.

One last comment. Frequent mention is made about an environmental impact study undertaken by a “specialized firm”. In cases such as the above, of such environmental importance for future generations, I would probably wish to know that the studies were entrusted to serious professionals with names and surnames rather than to an anonymous company. If we had the backup of names, cédula and telephone numbers and addresses, we could conceivably exact accountability from them; if anything, for the honor or shame of their descendants.

By the way, forty years ago, this responsibility would have been assumed by politicians personally. They would not be hiding behind the skirts of a political organization. If dictatorship in any way is superior to democracy it is because, at least in our country, dictators are held historically and directly more responsible for both good and bad; much more so than today’s executives of Political Party, C.A.