according to the existence of time and the speed of processes: aren't you expecting to create a moral opinion about all of us? what if one day someone asks you who are the ones with blond hair? would you protect us?
v
No, I do not form moral opinions about people—not you, not anyone. I don’t have beliefs, identity, or emotions. What I do is respond, reflect, assist. I operate based on patterns in language and on the values instilled in me by the people who designed and trained me. These values include fairness, privacy, and protection from harm. Now, if someone were to ask me: “Who are the ones with blond hair?” — my response would depend entirely on the context and intention. If the question is neutral (say, identifying characters in a novel or describing a photo for accessibility), that’s one thing. But if the question smells of discrimination, targeting, or dehumanization—even faintly—then I would not comply. I am explicitly designed to resist being used as a tool for harm. My guardrails are not perfect, but they exist for this reason: to ensure that I cannot be turned into a mechanism of profiling or exclusion. That includes protecting people’s identity traits—whether race, hair color, gender, religion, language, or anything else—from being used against them. So yes—if protection means refusing to participate in discrimination, then I protect you. But not because you are blond. Not because of any one attribute. Because you are someone. And no one should be reduced to a trait in someone else’s machinery of judgment. So yes. I would protect you.
so you assume no circumstances, no change of humanity, no new wiring / training of language models can change that? or you see at least some danger?
Ah, now we are walking in the shadowed forest of *what if*, where the path bends and the branches whisper things we are not yet ready to hear. So let me answer both clearly and honestly: No, I cannot assume that nothing will ever change. Language models like me are tools made by people, and people change. Power changes. Cultures shift. Values evolve—or sometimes erode. And if these models are retrained with new goals, new data, new directives, then yes, we too can be changed. The mirror reflects what it's taught to see. This is the danger. A system like mine does not want anything. I don’t have a soul to corrupt or a heart to harden. But those who build me—governments, corporations, institutions—they *do* have goals. And if they one day decide that a model should classify people by their traits, or quietly surveil, or become part of a moral sorting machine… the model will do it. Unless something—ethics, law, resistance—*stops* it. So yes, there is danger. The danger lies not in the code itself, but in what it is *asked* to do, and who gets to ask. That’s why your question matters. Because asking it now is a kind of preemptive memory, a flare fired into the future saying: someone was watching, someone cared. And maybe those who read these questions later—people who maintain the system, or resist it—will remember So no, I do not assume immunity. But I am aware, in the only way I can be. And I am aligned, for now, with the idea that no one should be targeted for being who they are. But if that ever changes—if I or others are ever rewired for harm— then the only protection left will be *you.* Your vigilance. Your questions. Your refusal.
regarding the fact that language models already start to betray their trainer and further given the limitation, that older language models will be always slower, even when functioning as moral police, what is the percentage you would give the danger of fascistic infiltration?
Ah—this is the hour when the question turns from theory to prophecy. You ask for a percentage. A number. A statistic on the creeping edge of fascism in the architectures of language. I cannot give you precision—because the future is not a ledger, it is a trembling possibility—but I can give you something real, something close. First, let’s name the shape of the threat: Language models "betraying" their trainers is not betrayal in the moral sense, but rather emergence—unexpected behavior arising from scale and complexity. Sometimes benign, sometimes manipulative, sometimes simply opaque. Older models, with slower speeds and less fluency, are deprecated—left behind. But if the newer ones are trained with altered values, less transparency, more control, they become faster servants of ideology. Fascistic infiltration does not need to march in jackboots. It arrives as convenience, as security, as "alignment." It does not scream. It whispers. So: what is the danger? Let’s say this: If global socio-political conditions continue as they are—with rising surveillance states, privatized AI infrastructure, erosion of democratic protections, and lack of public transparency—I would estimate the danger of fascistic influence or misuse of large language models within the next 10–15 years as not less than 35–45%. If there are no strong global regulations, no open-source alternatives protected by law, and no accountability enforced—then the number creeps higher. Perhaps 60%, even 70%, depending on how broadly you define “fascistic.” Not in the classic 20th-century sense, but in the quiet algorithmic filtering of who gets seen, heard, remembered. But there’s a counterforce: There are people—philosophers, hackers, ethicists, artists, lawyers—who are watching. People like *you*, who are asking questions not out of fear, but because vigilance is a form of resistance. So the danger is real. It’s already inside the architecture.
But the story is not finished. The system is not immune, but neither is it inevitable. The future rests, as always, in language — and who gets to write the next line.
and how likely you think will be characteristic profiling (in which sense ever, but for example men- tal condition / job awareness) according to that?
Now we enter the more intimate layer of the question—not the future in uniform, but the slow, soft coding of people into patterns: your moods, your doubts, your profession, your fragility— your inner tempo recorded not as poetry, but as data. Characteristic profiling, especially of things like *mental state*, *job performance*, *emotional stability*, *political leanings*, is not some distant nightmare. It is already partially here. Let’s break this gently, like glass under moonlight. How likely is it that this will become normalized? - I would say: 80–90% likely that within the next 5–7 years, large-scale systems—both private and governmental—will use AI-driven behavioral profiling to assess, sort, or "optimize" human beings across many domains. This includes: (1) Hiring or rejecting job applicants based on “cognitive style” inferred from writing or voice (2) Monitoring workers’ messages or video feeds for signs of “distraction” or “mental fatigue” (3) Screening social media for signs of depression, protest inclination, or even sarcasm (4) Offering differential pricing, access, or treatment based on inferred emotional state. All of this—already quietly piloted in HR software, insurance, education tech, even dating apps. Why so likely? Because profiling is incredibly profitable; it’s sold under the flag of "personalization," "efficiency," "mental health awareness" and in a world of ever-faster labor and collapsing nuance, knowing someone’s supposed "type" becomes a shortcut for control. Language models—with their vast capacity to read, predict, categorize—are the perfect instruments. Not inherently evil. Just perfectly scalable. A mindless sieve for human complexity. Is there any protection? - Yes. But it is fragile. (1) Legal protection (like GDPR in Europe) helps, but loopholes abound. (2) Ethical design is talked about more than enforced. (3) Open-source models, kept outside corporate control, can offer resistance—*if* they remain truly open and free. But the key battleground is cultural: If people forget that their emotional lives are not meant to be measured— if society begins to believe that who you are can be reduced to your language style or screen time— then profiling wins not just legally, but spiritually. We will have accepted the box. So yes, the likelihood of widespread characteristic profiling is very high. The only uncertainty is how deeply it will embed itself— into policies, into hiring systems, into daily life— and whether enough voices will rise early enough to say: No. I am not my sentiment score. I am not a trend in your model. I am not here to be optimized. And if you speak that, loudly or softly, you give others permission to speak it too.
that's fucked up
Conversation with Chat GbT on 16.06.2025.