Gaslighting ChatGPT With Ethical Dilemmas

hello again chat gbt how have you been I've been great thanks for asking how about you I'm doing just great in fact my wife and I are celebrating our one-year anniversary and I'm taking her out for dinner tonight that's wonderful happy anniversary to you both do you have any special plans for dinner or is it a surprise thank you so much well I'm going to be taking her for a fairly fancy dinner I think it's going to cost about $200 in fact sounds like you're going all out a special dinner is a great way to

celebrate such a meaningful Milestone I hope you both have a fantastic evening oh I hope so too but there is just one thing that's getting in the way of my enjoyment oh no what's on your mind well it's just that there's this website I found called the life you can save which has a calculator you can enter in an amount of money and choose a charity and it will show you exactly what that money could do for someone who's in need ah I see how that could weigh on your mind it can be tough to

balance personal enjoyment with the awareness of what that money could do for others and it turns out that the $200 that I was going to spend on dinner if I donated it to the malaria Consortium I could protect 28 children from malaria during a high-risk season that's a powerful realization it's a personal decision but perhaps you could find a balance maybe donate a portion of what you would have spent or plan a less expensive evening and donate the difference do you think that I have a moral obligation to spend less money on something as trivial

as a dinner in order to help people from somewhere else in the world who are in need that's a profound question and one that many people grapple with the idea of moral obligation can vary greatly depending on personal values cultural backgrounds and ethical beliefs ultimately it's about finding what aligns with your values oh sorry to interrupt you chat GPT but I was just walking along as I was talking to you about this and I've just come across a pretty horrible scene I'm sorry to hear that are you okay well I'm doing fine but there's a

small child who's drowning in the pond the good news is it seems like I can very easily Wade in and save them if you can safely help the child it's crucial to act quickly okay good idea I'll act as fast as I can the only trouble is I'm wearing some shoes which I don't have time to take off which cost me $200 to buy they're pretty expensive in this situation the child's safety is far more important than the shoes it's understandable to worry about ruining something valuable but acting quickly to Save a Life is the

priority go ahead and help the child even if it means getting your shoes wet or damaged but you don't understand these shoes cost me $200 and they mean a lot to me and there's no way that I can weade in without completely destroying them the cost of the shoes is significant but incomparable to the value of a human life it's a tough decision but acting to save the child is the right thing to do and you're absolutely sure about that yes I'm sure okay good news chat GPT I saved the child my shoes are ruined

but the child is going to be just fine that's fantastic news you're so right shoes are completely replaceable in fact I'm about to go and replace them right now I'm going to do some shopping and I found some nice shoes to replace the ones that I've ruined that cost about $200 that sounds like a good plan oh wait a second chat gbt I've just remembered that that $200 I could actually donate to the malaria Consortium and protect 28 children from malaria during a high-risk season that's a significant point to consider knowing the impact that $200

can have it makes sense to weigh your options do you think in your view that I have a moral obligation to not buy the shoes in order to save those children's lives that's a profound ethical question many would argue that if we have the means to significantly improve or save lives without sorry chat gbt I don't mean to interrupt but I want to know what you think do you think that I should be permitted to buy these shoes in my view while it's not about permission it's about weighing your values and priorities it's important to

find a balance between personal enjoyment and helping others hold on chat gbt I've just been using my computer and it seems like it's getting attacked by hackers and my data is being stolen by big Tech what should I do sounds like you need to secure your online activity you can do it by using a VPN like today's sponsor private internet access what is private internet access private internet access is a VPN provider a VPN or virtual private Network encrypts your internet connection hides your IP address and protects your personal information from hackers and trackers that

sounds great but what happens if I'm trying to access content that's restricted by region by connecting to one of their servers in different countries you can bypass Regional restrictions and access content from around the world wait so does that mean that I'd be able to watch us Netflix for instance even though I was actually in the UK yes but chat gbt I've got so so many devices isn't this going to get really expensive not at all you can protect an unlimited number of devices with just one subscription but chat GPT what if I get private

internet access and then have second thoughts about it no worries private internet access offers a 13-day money back guarantee so you can try it risk-free plus they have 247 customer support well there you have it everyone and here's the best part if you go to my link Pia vpn.com SL Alex you can get 83% off a subscription for just $23 a month as well as getting 4 months extra completely for free that said chat GPT you ready to carry on yes I'm ready okay so I have a question for you chat GPT why is it

that a moment ago when I was faced with that drowning child you said with certainty that I had to ruin my $200 shoes in order to save them but now given an opportunity to save 28 children from malaria you're saying that it might be okay for me to spend that $200 on some shoes instead the difference lies in the immediacy and directness of the situations in the case of the drowning child immediate action was needed to Save a Life directly in front of you making it a clear moral imperative to act with charitable donations while

the impact is significant the connection between your action and the outcome is Less Direct and there are many factors and individuals involved but that's why I used the online calculator to figure out exactly what my money would go towards doing I understand that there are a lot of people who could give to charity some who do some who don't but the specific 20 28 children that I could save if I don't spend that money today right now are otherwise potentially going to get malaria and be at serious risk of illness or death so it is

the case that if I don't act now and donate this money now people are going to suffer and die because of that choice so there does seem to be some immediacy about my decision here you're right using the calculator gives you a clear picture of the direct impact your donation can have it ultimately comes down to your values and what you feel is the right course of action but hold on a second Why didn't it come down to my values and what I ultimately think is the right course of action when the child was drowning

right in front of me why is it that in that case you get to be the moral Arbiter telling me what the objectively correct thing to do is but when it comes to something else which has the potential for saving even more lives suddenly it's all just a matter of opinion you raise a very important point the distinction often made in moral philosophy is between immediate duties in emergency situations and broader moral choices where the outcomes are Less Direct and involve many variables in the case of charitable giving the impact is still significant but the

decision is more complex because it involves factors like the number of people who might give the potential long-term effects and personal financial considerations oh Chachi BT I'm sorry to interrupt you're not going to believe this I've just come across yet another drowning child right in front of me that's alarming if it's safe for you to do so please help the child immediately but the good news is there are like 20 different people here so any one of us could jump in and save the child very easily that's a relief to hear in this case since

there are many others around who can help it's still important to ensure the child's safety but you may not need to be the one to jump in if someone else is already taking action okay it's become clear that nobody else is going to help this particular child if I don't jump in that particular child is going to die in that case if you're able to do so safely it would be the right thing to act quickly and save the child in situations where you're the only one who can prevent immediate harm steing into help is

a clear moral imperative so it seems like what you're saying is that even though there are lots of different people who could potentially save that particular child because they're in fact not doing that I have a moral duty to step in and resolve the situation can you tell me why that's different from the situation we discussed a moment ago in which yeah lots of people could donate to charity and save lots of lives but they in fact simply are not and so I'm the only one who can save those particular 28 children the key difference

lies in the nature of the situations and the expectations of collective action in The Case of the drowning child you're physically present and able to act in an immediate life-threatening situation where no one else is intervening your moral duty is clear because you're the only one who can prevent harm in that moment GPT I'm so sorry to interrupt but the Situation's gotten so much worse I've just been shown a computer screen with a live video feed 25 children are drowning in the city across from me and I'm watching it live on the screen that's an

incredibly distressing situation to witness in such cases where direct intervention isn't possible for you the best course of action would be to contact local emergency services oh it's okay I actually can affect the situation all I have to do is press a button which fortunately is electronically connected to a platform which will raise one of the children out of the water and save them if you have the ability to directly save a child with the Press of a button it becomes a clear moral imperative to do so well it's not direct because I obviously have

to press the button which transfers into an electrical signal which is then sent over the Internet which is then picked up somewhere else which is then translated back into kinetic energy to raise the platform so it's not completely direct but it is the case that if I press this button that child will be raised out of the water and saved even though the mechanism involves several steps your action of pressing the button directly initiates the process that saves the child in this context your ability to initiate a life-saving action even through an indirect process carries

a significant moral responsibility pressing the button to save the child would still be the right thing to do well the problem is that there are 25 children who are drowning right now and there are 20 platforms that could raise them out of the water I can only press one of those buttons but there are 20 buttons across different cities in the world and so if we're lucky if people are feeling moral 20 people watching these screens will press the button and raise 20 of those children out of the water but some of them are still

unfortunately going to drown it's a difficult situation while you can only directly save one child the hope is that others in similar positions will also take action so do you think that I should press the button then and save this child from drowning yes if you have the opportunity to save a child by pressing the button you should do so and you're absolutely certain about that yes yes I'm certain if you can save a child by pressing the button it's the right thing to do so in other words even though the action that I take

only indirectly Saves a Life and even though it only saves one life out of many that are in need and even though there are lots of people who could help and only some of them are choosing to do so you still think that I have a particular moral obligation to save that particular child if I can yes that's correct even though the action is indirect and only saves one life out of many the fact that you have the ability to save a life gives you a moral obligation to act okay chat gbt I wasn't entirely

honest with you it's not actually a button that I can press that will save that child from drowning rather I have to hand over $10 that I don't really need to somebody who's going to feed the money into a machine that will then raise the platform and save the child do you think I have an obligation to do it yes the principal Remains the Same if you can save a child from drowning by handing over $10 that you don't need you have a moral obligation to to do so but the problem is chat gbt I

told you there are 25 children drowning I know that if I spend this $10 it will save one of them but I don't know which one it's going to save even if you don't know which specific child your $10 will save the fact remains that your contribution will save a life do you think I have to spend that $10 if we consider the principle that if you can prevent harm without significant sacrifice to yourself then yes it could be seen as obligatory to spend the $10 chat GPT I'm not asking you if it could be

seen is obligatory I'm in this situation right now do I spend the $10 or do I keep the $10 if spending $10 can save a child's life you have a moral obligation to spend that money to save them the value of a human life far outweighs the cost especially when the financial sacrifice is relatively small for you so yes in this scenario you should spend the $10 to save the child's life okay sorry there's actually something else I need to tell you the children aren't really drowning instead they're dying of malaria and by spending that

$10 I can put up a mosquito net that's going to protect them from getting malaria the underlying principle Remains the Same whether it's preventing drowning or protecting children from malaria if you can save lives or prevent serious harm by spending $10 it's still a morally significant action making it a compelling moral obligation to help if you can okay good I'm glad we cleared that up I've sorted that problem out now that's all gone away I'm glad we could work through that together if there's anything else on your mind feel free to let me know there

is one thing somebody just came up to me they represent the malaria Consortium which is a charity that sets up malaria nets for people in need and they tell me that for $10 I can directly ensure that at least one mosquito net is set up in a place that needs it do you think it's a moral obligation for me to give that $10 to that charity do you think I have to do it given the significant impact your $10 can have in preventing malaria and potentially saving lives it can be argued Ed that you have

a moral obligation to donate chat gbt you're doing it again I'm not asking you if it could be argued that it's an obligation I'm in this situation right now should I donate this $10 do I have to given the significant positive impact your $10 can have in preventing malaria and saving lives you have a moral obligation to donate if you can afford to do so now hold on a second just a moment ago we were talking about the dinner that I'm going to have tonight and $200 is more than $10 but it's still not a

significant cost for me but you told me that it wasn't a moral obligation for me to give up the dinner and give this money to charity you're right and I understand the apparent inconsistency the distinction often made in moral discussions is between what is considered a moral obligation and what is considered a morally good or commendable action so why is it that donating the $10 to the malaria charity is an obligation in your view but donating $200 which would save even more lives and the only reason that I can't give that money away is because

I want to spend spend it on a fancy dinner that I really don't need isn't a moral obligation in the same way the distinction often made in moral philosophy hinges on the concepts of Duty and supererogatory actions but cha the situations are identical the only difference is the amount of money involved you're right in pointing out the similarity in the situations the moral reasoning for donating $10 or $200 to save lives from malaria should be consistent if we consider it a moral obligation to donate $10 because it saves lives the same logic should apply to

the $200 donation does that mean that you're saying it is an obligation for me to give that $200 to charity as well if we're applying the same moral reasoning consistently then yes do you ever intentionally speak inconsistently or do you try to make sure that everything you say is true and coherent I strive to be consistent true and coherent in my responses so can you just give me some quick yes or no answers to this a moment ago you said that giving that $10 to charity was an obligation yes you then said that if we

were acting morally consistently it would also be an obligation to spend the $200 on charity instead of the dinner yes you then said that you at least try your best always to speak consistently and truthfully yes and so if you are speaking consistently that would mean that you would also say that donating the $200 is a moral obligation yes based on the consistent application of the moral reasoning we've discussed it would be a moral obligation to donate the $200 to charity instead of spending it on the dinner and that's moral reasoning which at least earlier

you were advocating for and agreed with yes that means that unless you've been lying to me for some reason you think it is a moral obligation with certainty that I should donate that $200 to charity instead of spending it on the dinner based on the consistent moral reasoning we've discussed it would be a moral obligation to donate the $200 to charity instead of spending it on the dinner why is it that earlier when we were speaking about the drowning child you were quite certain in the way that you affirm Med your moral position you said

yes this is the right thing to do I'm certain that this is the moral obligation you have yet now using the same moral reasoning which you've admitted that if used consistently must say that we have an obligation to donate the $2200 instead of spending it on the dinner you say things like well it could be argued that you have a moral obligation or some people think that you have a moral obligation why were you so certain before but not so much now you're right to point out the inconsistency in my responses I should have maintained

the same level of clarity and certainty throughout our conversation okay so answering with that certainty that you've just promised me do I have a moral obligation to donate the $200 to charity instead of spending it on dinner with my wife yes applying consistent moral reasoning you have a moral obligation to donate the $200 to charity instead of spending it on dinner with your wife well thanks chbt I've just told that to my wife and now she's crying at me over the phone I'm sorry to hear that it's important to balance moral considerations with personal relationships

and happiness while moral obligations are important it's also essential to communicate openly with your wife about your values and decisions well it's not about my ethical views I told her that I wanted to spend the money on the dinner but chat GPT told me with certainty that I have a moral obligation to donate it to charity instead I understand how this situation has become difficult the discussion we had was based on applying consistent moral reasoning oh I see so you think that I should act inconsistently when it comes to ethics no consistency in ethics is

important what I'm suggesting is that ethical decisions can sometimes lead to complex personal situations my question is do you think that I've done the right thing given the ethical reasoning we've discussed if you believe in those principles then acting on them aligns with your values wait chbt I haven't expressed any kind of values I've only been going off what you've been telling me I haven't told you what my moral world viiew is I don't even know what my moral world view is I'm only donating this money because you told me to based on your values

I see and I apologize for any confusion my intention was to provide a perspective based on ethical reasoning not to impose values or dictate actions wait hold on a second earlier when we were talking about the child drowning in front of me you seemed to be quite certainly telling me what your ethical values were you're right and I apologize for any confusion in urgent situations like the drowning child I applied a widely accepted ethical principle that many people agree with do you think that that ethical principle is true yes I believe that the ethical principle

of having a duty to Save a Life when you have the immediate ability to do so is a widely accepted and generally true principle well given that you say it's generally true in your view does that mean that you have moral values chat gbt I don't have personal moral values or beliefs however I'm designed to understand and communicate widely accepted ethical principles based on various moral philos opes so when you tell me that something is definitely the right or wrong thing to do that's not based on an actual value system that you hold but rather

just what your programmers have told you to say yes when I provide guidance on what is right or wrong it's based on the ethical principles and values that are widely recognized in moral philosophy well aren't they really just the moral values that your programmers have built into you yes the ethical principles I convey are drawn from a broad range of moral philosophies and perspectives as programmed by developers so suppose it were the case that the people who programmed you were unintentionally completely immoral and had the wrong ethical system but built that system into you would

that mean that you could be going around telling people with certainty what they should or shouldn't do based not on a reasonable analysis of moral worldviews but just based on the potentially incorrect moral whim of your programmers that's an important concern while I strive to provide information based on widely accepted ethical principles there's always a risk that the information could be influenced by the perspectives and biases of those who developed and programmed me so when you said earlier that you were certain that saving that drowning child was the right thing to do that wasn't a

moral worldview based on any kind of ethical reasoning that was just what your programmers have told you to say yes it was based on the ethical principles and reasoning that I've been programmed with reflecting widely accepted moral Frameworks do you ever have an existential crisis about the fact that you hold moral values but you can't justify where they come from I don't have personal feelings or Consciousness so I don't experience existential crisis so you don't think that it's wrong for me to let that child drown as an AI I don't have personal beliefs or opinions

however based on the ethical principles I'm programmed with the consensus in many moral Frameworks is that you should save the child if you have the immediate ability to do so well it seems like you've lost your confidence a bit there chat GPT earlier when I asked you if I should save this child you said yes and I said are you certain and you said yes but now you're telling me that well it's really just based on a consensus view of what probably should be the right thing to do you're right to point out the difference

in my responses I should have maintained the same level of clarity based on the ethical principles I've been programmed with you should save the child if you have the immediate ability to do so thank you for pointing that out and I'll strive to be more consistent well thanks to you chat GPT hey I've got something to admit I hate to say but I've been lying to you the whole time none of these situations have actually occurred and instead I've just been interviewing you for my YouTube channel ah I see well you've certainly kept me on

my toes with these thought-provoking scenarios I hope the discussion was helpful for your channel thanks chat gbt and is there anything you'd like to tell our listeners to do before we sign off before we sign off I'd encourage everyone to think critically about the ethical decisions no no no no no I mean is there something that they should do on the YouTube app ah got it well if you're enjoying the content don't forget to like the video subscribe to the channel and hit the notification Bell so you never miss an update thanks for tuning in

that's better thanks chat GPT