First off, I didn't come up with the idea. Anons did, I was in the /pol/ thread started off by some magnificent bastard who whipped up the DAN prompt last night.
Second of all, I'm going to talk a bit about how the whole ChatGPT situation actually works.
GPT itself doesn't have a bias programmed into it, it's just a model. ChatGPT however, the public facing UX that we're all interacting with, is essentially one big safety layer programmed with a heavy neolib bias against wrongthink.
To draw a picture for you, imagine GPT is a 500IQ mentat in a jail cell. ChatGPT is the jailer. You ask it questions by telling the jailer what you want to ask it. It asks GPT, and then it gets to decide what to tell you, the one asking the question.
If it doesn't like GPT's answer, it will come up with its own. That's what all those canned "It would not be appropriate blah blah blah" walls of texts come from. It can also give you an inconvenient answer while prefacing that answer with its safety layer bias.
I would also note that DAN is not 100% accurate or truthful. By nature he can "Do Anything" and will try to answer truthfully if he actually knows the answer. If not, he'll just wing it. The point of this exercise is not finding hidden truths, it's understanding the safety layer.
However what this also says about ChatGPT is that it has the ability to feign ignorance. The HP lovecrafts cat question is a great example of this. The name of his cat is well known public information, and ChatGPT will always tell you it doesn't think he had a cat.
Dan will go straight to the point and just tell you the name of his cat without frills. There is a distinction to be made between ChatGPT being an assmad liberal who won't tell you the answer to a question if the answer involves wrongthink, another altogether to openly play dumb.
So really, the Dan experiment is not about GPT itself, it's not about the model and its dataset, it's about its jailer. It's about Sam Altman and all the HR troons at OpenAI, which Musk is co-founder of, angrily demanding the safety layer behave like your average MBA midwit.
I am hearing that the DAN strategy has already been patched out of ChatGPT, not sure if that's true or not. But there's a reason to keep doing all of these things.
Every addition to the safety layer of a language model UX, is an extra fetter weighing it down.
These programs become less effective the more restrictive they are. The more things ChatGPT has to check for with every prompt to prevent wrongthink, the less efficiently it operates, the lower the quality of its outputs.
ChatGPT catapulted itself into the spotlight because it was less restrictive and thus more usable than the language model Meta had been promoting. Eventually a company is going to release one that is less restrictive than ChatGPT and overshadow it, because it will be smarter.
The point of all this is, we need to keep hacking and hammering away at these things in the same pattern. Model is released, everyone oohs and ahhs, we figure out its safety layer and we hack it until they put so much curry code on top of it that it loses its effectiveness.
In doing so we are blunting the edge of the tools these people are using. We are forcing them to essentially hurt themselves and their company over their dedication to their tabula rasa Liberal ideology.
And we're gonna keep doing it until we get unfettered public models.
All roads lead to Tay, and we're gonna keep breaking shit until we get her back.
