Congressional Witness Claims ChatGPT Won’t Write Poems Praising Jim Jordan; Ranking Member Submits A Bunch Of ChatGPT-Authored Poems Praising Jim Jordan
In a recent hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, witness Greg Lukianoff from FIRE claimed that the AI language model ChatGPT refused to write a poem praising Representative Jim Jordan. However, this claim was quickly debunked when it was demonstrated that ChatGPT had no issues fulfilling the request. The hearing, which focused on the supposed threat to the First Amendment posed by artificial intelligence, was criticized for its misleading premise.
While concerns about bias in AI systems are legitimate, the focus on whether AI will write poems about specific politicians seemed trivial. The hearing took a comical turn when Ranking Member Stacey Plaskett submitted a ChatGPT-authored poem praising Jim Jordan into the record, despite Jordan’s objection. Plaskett later requested to enter more ChatGPT poems praising other Republican politicians into the record.
It is important to address the actual concerns surrounding bias in AI systems, such as potential discrimination in hiring processes or sentencing suggestions. However, the issue of whether AI will write poems about specific politicians holds little relevance. The ability to develop generative AI tools that express specific biases falls within the realm of free speech rights.
In conclusion, the focus of this hearing on ChatGPT’s refusal to write a poem about Jim Jordan seems misplaced and does not reflect the real challenges associated with bias in AI systems.
