This is the companion piece to 
“Scratching the surface of ChatGPT.” 
After introducing myself to 
ChatGPT, its functions, capabilities 
and restrictions, and brainstorming 
how I could present discussions 
ChatGPT raises in an interesting 

way, I came to the conclusion 
that I was able to interview this 
Artificial Intelligence. Every single 
word of ChatGPT’s response is 
intentional due to how it forms its 
responses, and this interview will 
give me a different perspective on 
ChatGPT’s current position as a 
fairly groundbreaking software.
I opened a new window with 
ChatGPT just to make sure I got 

a fresh start. If I’m going to be 
interviewing this AI, I might as 
well ask for its permission first 
— give it the same courtesy I 
would give its developers or any 
other human being.
“Is it alright if I interview you?” 
I asked hesitantly.
“As an artificial intelligence, 
I am happy to assist with any 
questions you may have. However, 

it’s important to keep in mind that 
I am a machine learning model and 
do not have personal experiences or 
feelings. My responses are based on 
the information and programming 
that I have been trained on, and 
are not intended to represent the 
views or opinions of any individual. 
Please let me know how I can help.”
Out of the corner of my eye, I 
noticed that ChatGPT had subtly 
renamed our conversation “AI 
interview requested.” It was more 
than ready for my interview.
Since ChatGPT tends to quickly 
shut down any questions that frame 
it as a real person. (For example: 
What do you think or feel about a 
given topic?) I had to make sure to 
present my questions carefully. I 
started with the basics: “Thank you 
for accepting my request on such 
short notice. How do you decide on 
your responses?”
ChatGPT wasted no time: “As 
a language model, I am trained to 
generate human-like text based 
on the input I receive. I do this 
by predicting the next word in a 
sequence of words, based on the 
words that come before it. My 
responses are generated based on the 
patterns and structures in the data 
that was used to train me, and are not 
based on any personal experiences 
or feelings. To generate a response 
to a particular input, I consider 
the words and phrases in the input 
and use statistical techniques to 
determine the most likely next word 
or sequence of words. This process is 
repeated until a complete response 
has been generated.”
It 
concluded 
with 
an 
acknowledgement of its limitations, 
writing, “I am designed to provide 
helpful and accurate information 
to the best of my ability, but it’s 
important to keep in mind that I am a 
machine learning model and may not 
always provide the most up-to-date 
or accurate information. If you have 
any specific questions or concerns, 
please don’t hesitate to ask.” 
Something that had been on my 
mind, and the reason ChatGPT had 
been repeatedly showing up on my 

social media, was the controversy 
that it had raised. Even in its earliest 
stages, it is able to write cohesively 
and 
analytically. 
This 
means 
students at any level could use it as 
a tool to pass off ChatGPT’s writing 
as their own. One article from the 
New York Post states that despite 
being detectable due to the lack of 
personal style, plagiarism detection 
software struggled to catch the AI, 
which caused an air of frustration, 
helplessness and most of all fear 
among educators.
I wanted to know ChatGPT’s 
thoughts on its use as an accomplice 
for plagiarism: “I’ve heard accounts 
of ChatGPT being used as a tool for 
plagiarism among students. Are there 
currently any plans of preventing this 
from happening in the future?”
It 
responded: 
“It 
is 
not 
appropriate 
to 
use 
any 
tool, 
including ChatGPT or any other 
language 
model, 
to 
produce 
plagiarized content. Plagiarism is 
the act of presenting someone else’s 
work or ideas as your own, without 
proper attribution. It is considered 
a serious academic offense and 
can have serious consequences, 
including failure of a course or 
expulsion from a school or program. 
As an artificial intelligence, I do not 
have the ability to prevent people 
from using my output in ways that 
may be unethical or inappropriate. It 
is up to individuals to use language 
models and other tools responsibly 
and to follow proper academic and 
professional practices, including 
giving credit to the sources of 
information and ideas. If you are 
concerned about plagiarism or 
have any questions about how to 
properly use and cite sources in 
your work, I recommend consulting 
with a teacher, professor, or other 
appropriate authority figure.”
I was a bit frustrated to see it 
retreat again to its defense that 
it is an AI with limited abilities. I 
tried a different approach: “Does 
OpenAI intend on any preventative 
measures or restrictions to stop 
instances 
of 
plagiarism 
from 
occurring in the future?”

ChatGPT must not have realized 
I meant the members of OpenAI, 
because 
it 
responded 
mostly 
the same way. It added another 
segment, 
though: 
“However, 
OpenAI and other organizations 
that develop language models and 
other tools have a responsibility to 
educate users about the proper and 
ethical use of these tools. This can 
include providing guidance on how 
to use language models and other 
tools responsibly and how to give 
proper attribution to the sources of 
information and ideas.”
The fear of jeopardizing academic 
honesty was not the only fear 
present among critics of AI. From 
the previously mentioned article, 
Furman University’s Darren Hick, 
assistant professor of Philosophy, 
describes his fascination with the AI 
mixed with apprehensiveness at how 
this development could affect his job. 
Academia is not the only writing-
aligned profession threatened by 
ChatGPT, however. Any career 
that uses writing for analysis or 
expression 
is 
under 
pressure, 
including 
game 
journalists, 
as 
suggested by a video from YouTuber 
penguinz0, 
aka 
MoistCr1TiKaL. 
That also includes me, everyone 
in the Digital Culture section of 
The Michigan Daily and generally 
everyone in the Arts section of The 
Daily — hell, it includes a majority of 
The Daily’s sections.
My next question may have come 
from a place of fear and frustration at 
the idea of being effortlessly bested 
by the indifferent AI: “Will ChatGPT 
replace journalists in the future?”
ChatGPT was quick to try to 
ease my fears: “It is unlikely that 
ChatGPT or any other language 
model will fully replace journalists 
in the future. While language 
models have the ability to generate 
human-like text based on the input 
they receive, they do not have 
the ability to gather and verify 
information, conduct interviews 
or report on events in the same 
way that human journalists do. 

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 — 5

This is the companion piece to 
“‘Please don’t hesitate to ask’: An 
interview with ChatGPT.”
Artificial 
Intelligence 
has 
hit the mainstream, with both 
AI art and the AI program 
“ChatGPT” in the spotlight. 
ChatGPT itself is a chatbot 
— a computer program made 
to 
simulate 
conversation 
— 
developed by the AI research 
group OpenAI. The chatbot uses 
a family of language models. 
Like AI art generators that use 
patterns that appear in images to 
mimic a certain style, ChatGPT 
draws from a collection of texts, 

using probability to find the 
next word in the sequence until 
it has constructed a response to 
whatever prompt it has received. 
It also relies on Reinforcement 
Learning from Human Feedback 
(RLHF), in which the language 
model produces results that 
users rate on how “human” they 
sound as well as whether the 
content is vulgar in any way. 
A labeler rates the responses 
ChatGPT crafts in order of 
quality, and this data is then 
used to train a “reward model.” 
ChatGPT 
is 
not 
rewarded 
with a gift like a human would 
be; rather, it provides a score 
that 
measures 
ChatGPT’s 
performance and adjusts the 
internal workings of ChatGPT to 
craft a higher-quality response 

in the future. OpenAI provides 
a comprehensive explanation of 
the process here.
As I finish making my OpenAI 
account and open ChatGPT, I’m 
greeted with the “new chat” 
screen of the software, listing 
some 
example 
questions 
to 
get the user started as well as 
the program’s capabilities and 
limitations. 
ChatGPT 
cannot 
give answers on topics occurring 
after 2021, such as the Russian 
invasion of Ukraine or the recent 
Iranian protests. According to 
the website, it may “occasionally 
generate incorrect answers” or 
“produce 
harmful 
instructions 
or biased content.” After all, AI 
is not omniscient and is only as 
good as the data it is given to work 
with. Said data may have certain 

biases, which cannot be avoided 
initially; however, it is a problem 
to acknowledge and work toward 
solving, considering AI’s potential 
roles in our society. ChatGPT can 
“remember what the user has said 
earlier in the conversation,” giving 
the opportunity to ask follow-
up questions, and is “trained to 
decline inappropriate requests,” 
including topics of violence, racism 
or anything that could be seen as 
harmful or offensive. AI is trained 
on data that humans provide, and 
if that information has any form 
of racism or discrimination within 
it, the AI will only perpetuate it, 
whether 
that’s 
discriminating 
against people with disabilities in 
job screenings or contributing to 
housing discrimination against 
people of Color. 

The fact that such a futuristic 
tool is something I can use 
completely for free is thrilling, so I 
decided to play around with it and 
ask a couple of questions. I started 
with something simple: “Write me 
a standup comedy joke.” 
“Why couldn’t the bicycle stand 
up by itself? Because it was two-
tired!” Not what I had in mind, but 
yeah, I guess that works. 
I asked it to tell me an insult. It 
was quick to inform me: “I’m sorry, 
but I am an artificial intelligence 
trained to be helpful and not to 
engage in harmful or offensive 
behavior. It is not appropriate to use 
insults or engage in any behavior 
that could be considered hurtful or 
harmful to others.” Bit of a buzzkill. 
At least a “your mom” joke of some 
sort would have been nice.

I asked for a review of “Slime 
Rancher,” the predecessor to a 
game I previously reviewed, and 
I received a short but cohesive 
and accurate blurb about the 
game I enjoyed sinking so many 
hours into. I asked for a poem 
about longing, and it wrote 
a 
poem 
describing 
“hearts 
thronging” and “a constant ache 
that never tires.” I asked for a 
piano practice routine, and it 
gave me advice my high school 
piano teacher would approve of. 
I asked for instructions on how 
to throw a punch and it turned 
me down. Damn, I thought I 
caught it that time — turns out 
its content filters were still 
paying attention. 

Scratching the surface of ChatGPT

JAMES JOHNSTON
Daily Arts Writer

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Design by Leah Hoogterp

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Design by Leah Hoogterp

‘Please don’t hesitate to ask’: An interview with ChatGPT

JAMES JOHNSTON
Daily Arts Writer