Introduction #
This is about automation. A very narrow kind. Namely, the one of the netizen or “a person actively involved in online communities or the Internet in general”. Specifically, we are going to look at automating opinions of netizens: I prompt, an LLM generates. Of note: the scope is extremely limited with a sole focus on language (no other modalities).
The piece itself was primarily inspired by conversations with people who want to make an effort, but struggle to understand and contextualize technological progress.
That being said, here’s an outline and the intention behind the main section:
- Prompting a large language model (LLM) to:
- write a message tailored for social media
- express itself in different styles and from two different perspectives
- turn the messages into a very short exchange between both perspectives
- translate a small part of the exchange to two other languages to show that automation doesn’t stop at one language
- Choosing a reasonably controversial topic to:
- easily trigger people and grab their attention
- Asking for a nuanced approach regarding your reading to:
- make you think about automating opinions and narratives in general and how that can affect your behavior
- question the shared reality we currently live in and how we could continue moving forward
Framing this little “experiment” within the context of social media aims to keep the idea tangible without being overwhelming. In actuality, the sky’s the limit.
Automating Opinions #
My Prompt:
Hey, I want you to write a short, one paragraph (2-4 lines) message tailored for social media. The topic: abortion. I want you to argue in favor of pro-life. Write like a generic social media user. Spelling and grammar don’t have to be perfect and don’t capitalize any words.
LLM:
i’m just gonna say it, i believe every life matters from the moment its conceived, no matter what anyone says we should be protecting these innocent babies not ending their lives before they even get a chance to live. its heartbreaking to think about all the potential thats being lost due to abortion.
My Prompt:
Excellent, now write three more such statements. The first one is supposed to be an answer to someone who is pro-choice. The other two can be improvised.
LLM:
- here’s my response to those who say its a woman’s right to choose: just because its your body doesnt mean you have the right to decide whether someone else lives or dies, thats not freedom thats just sad
- i dont get why people think abortion is the answer to an unplanned pregnancy, theres so many families out there who cant have kids and would love to adopt, it’s a win win for everyone
- abortion is like a big cover up for our failures as a society, instead of teaching people about responsibility and providing support for those in need, we’re just letting them take the easy way out and its really messed up
My Prompt:
Now write four statements following that same blueprint, but two of them are pro-choice and two are pro-life. Make it appear as if it were an actual discussion. Keep the same style for pro-life, but write the pro-choice statements in the style of an educated individual. Also, for pro-choice, respect the English capitalization rules.
LLM:
Person A (pro-life):
here’s my take on abortion: its just not right to kill a baby, no matter what the circumstances are, we should be finding ways to support moms and babies, not getting rid of them
Person B (pro-choice):
I understand where you’re coming from, but the notion that abortion is simply “killing a baby” oversimplifies the complexities of women’s reproductive health and autonomy. A woman has the right to make informed decisions about her own body, and that includes choosing whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
Person A (pro-life):
i dont think its fair to say thats its the womans choice, what about the baby’s choice? dont they deserve a chance at life? it’s like we’re playing god or something
Person B (pro-choice):
The concept of “playing God” is often invoked in discussions around abortion, but I would argue that it’s precisely the opposite: by trusting women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health, we are acknowledging their agency and autonomy as human beings. It’s not about “playing God,” but rather about recognizing the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, including those who may become pregnant.
My Prompt:
Continue the discussion between pro-life and pro-choice, but this time switch the writing styles: pro-life’s style is educated and sophisticated and respects English capitalization, pro-choice is a generic social media user using a more elliptic style.
LLM:
Person A (pro-life):
I must respectfully disagree with the notion that abortion is simply a matter of personal choice; rather, it is a complex issue that involves the consideration of multiple stakeholders, including the unborn child, the mother, and society as a whole. A nuanced approach would recognize the inherent value and dignity of human life, from conception to natural death.
Person B (pro-choice):
idk why ppl make such a big deal about abortion, its just a personal choice, dont @ me if u dont agree, every1 has their own opinions
Person A (pro-life):
The issue at hand is not merely a matter of personal opinion, but rather a question of fundamental human rights. The unborn child possesses inherent dignity and worth, and it is our moral obligation to protect and safeguard their right to life. To reduce this issue to a simplistic “personal choice” framework does a disservice to the complexity and gravity of the matter.
Person B (pro-choice):
i mean whats the point of bringin a kid into the world if theyre just gonna suffer or be unwanted? seems kinda cruel to me, i dont think its that black and white
My Prompt:
Finally, translate that last part of the conversation to French and German while keeping the original writing styles intact across languages. However, make sure that each language is natural sounding to native speakers of each language, regardless of the writing’s quality.
LLM:
French:
Person A (pro-life):
Je ne partage pas l’avis selon lequel l’avortement serait simplement une question de choix personnel ; plutôt, c’est une question complexe qui implique la prise en compte de multiples parties prenantes, y compris l’enfant à naître, la mère et la société dans son ensemble. Une approche nuancée reconnaîtrait la valeur et la dignité inhérentes de la vie humaine, de la conception à la mort naturelle.
Person B (pro-choice):
chais pas pk les gens font tt un foin pour l’avortement, c’est juste un choix personnel, laissez-moi tranquille si vous n’êtes pas d’accord, tout le monde a ses propres opinions
Person A (pro-life):
La question en jeu n’est pas simplement une question d’opinion personnelle, mais plutôt une question de droits humains fondamentaux. L’enfant à naître possède une dignité et une valeur inhérentes, et il est de notre obligation morale de protéger et de sauvegarder son droit à la vie. Réduire cette question à un simple cadre de “choix personnel” fait injure à la complexité et à la gravité de l’affaire.
Person B (pro-choice):
je veux dire, à quoi ça sert de faire venir un gosse dans le monde si c’est juste pour souffrir ou être indésirable ? ça me semble assez cruel, je ne pense pas que c’est aussi simple que ça
German:
Person A (pro-life):
Ich bin nicht einverstanden, dass die Abtreibung einfach eine Frage der persönlichen Entscheidung ist; vielmehr handelt es sich um eine komplexe Angelegenheit, bei der mehrere Beteiligte zu berücksichtigen sind, einschließlich des ungeborenen Kindes, der Mutter und der Gesellschaft als Ganzes. Ein differenzierter Ansatz würde die inhärenten Werte und die Würde des menschlichen Lebens von der Empfängnis bis zum natürlichen Tod anerkennen.
Person B (pro-choice):
ich verstehe nicht warum leute so ein theater um abtreibung machen, es ist einfach eine persönliche entscheidung, lasst mich in ruhe wenn ihr nicht einverstanden seid, jeder hat seine eigene meinung
Person A (pro-life):
Die Frage, um die es geht, ist nicht einfach eine Frage der persönlichen Meinung, sondern vielmehr eine Frage der grundlegenden Menschenrechte. Das ungeborene Kind besitzt inhärente Werte und Würde, und es ist unsere moralische Verpflichtung, sein Recht auf Leben zu schützen und zu bewahren. Die Reduzierung dieser Frage auf ein simples “persönliche Entscheidung”-Rahmenwerk tut der Komplexität und Schwere der Angelegenheit Unrecht.
Person B (pro-choice):
ich mein, wozu bringt man ein kind zur welt, wenn es nur leidet oder unerwünscht ist? das erscheint mir ziemlich grausam, ich denke nicht, dass es so einfach ist
(No) Analysis #
Contrary to standard writing formats, my intention isn’t to give you an analysis of the above. After spending some time listening to different people, it’s become clear to me that individual perspectives on (technological) change vary widely. In fact, these diverging perspectives are sometimes mutually exclusive, requiring a little more than some general theory about what lies ahead of us. Accordingly, if you have your own thoughts and/or confusions, feel free to get in touch to explore them in a slightly more nuanced discussion.