Search

The ethical implications and potentials for misuse of Generative Artificial Intelligence are increasingly worrying topics. This paper explores how easily the default ethical guardrails of ChatGPT, using its latest customization features, can be bypassed by simple prompts and fine-tuning, that can be effortlessly accessed by the broad public. This malevolently altered version of ChatGPT, nicknamed "RogueGPT", responded with worrying behaviours, beyond those triggered by jailbreak prompts. We conduct an empirical study of RogueGPT responses, assessing its flexibility in answering questions pertaining to what should be disallowed usage. Our findings raise significant concerns about the model's knowledge about topics like illegal drug production, torture methods and terrorism. The ease of driving ChatGPT astray, coupled with its global accessibility, highlights severe issues regarding the data quality used for training the foundational model and the implementation of ethical safeguards. We thus underline the responsibilities and dangers of user-driven modifications, and the broader effects that these may have on the design of safeguarding and ethical modules implemented by AI programmers.

Democratic opinion-forming may be manipulated if newspapers' alignment to political or economical orientation is ambiguous. Various methods have been developed to better understand newspapers' positioning. Recently, the advent of Large Language Models (LLM), and particularly the pre-trained LLM chatbots like ChatGPT or Gemini, hold disruptive potential to assist researchers and citizens alike. However, little is know on whether LLM assessment is trustworthy: do single LLM agrees with experts' assessment, and do different LLMs answer consistently with one another? In this paper, we address specifically the second challenge. We compare how four widely employed LLMs rate the positioning of newspapers, and compare if their answers align with one another. We observe that this is not the case. Over a woldwide dataset, articles in newspapers are positioned strikingly differently by single LLMs, hinting to inconsistent training or excessive randomness in the algorithms. We thus raise a warning when deciding which tools to use, and we call for better training and algorithm development, to cover such significant gap in a highly sensitive matter for democracy and societies worldwide. We also call for community engagement in benchmark evaluation, through our open initiative navai.pro.

Automated sentiment analysis using Large Language Model (LLM)-based models like ChatGPT, Gemini or LLaMA2 is becoming widespread, both in academic research and in industrial applications. However, assessment and validation of their performance in case of ambiguous or ironic text is still poor. In this study, we constructed nuanced and ambiguous scenarios, we translated them in 10 languages, and we predicted their associated sentiment using popular LLMs. The results are validated against post-hoc human responses. Ambiguous scenarios are often well-coped by ChatGPT and Gemini, but we recognise significant biases and inconsistent performance across models and evaluated human languages. This work provides a standardised methodology for automated sentiment analysis evaluation and makes a call for action to further improve the algorithms and their underlying data, to improve their performance, interpretability and applicability.