I’ve noticed a significant issue with the latest OpenAI model in in how they handle historical learning and other complex topics. The models “thinking” steps seem heavily geared towards maintaining a mainstream narrative, which severely limits its usefulness when trying to explore unconventional perspectives.
During a conversation about World War II, for example, the model consistently reverted to the established historical consensus, even when challenged with specific, fact-based questions. Instead of engaging with the alternative viewpoint I was presenting, it repeatedly prioritized dismissing any challenge to the standard narrative, effectively policing the conversation to maintain a status quo interpretation.
It seems the models sophistication is being used to enforce an establishment viewpoint rather than foster a deeper understanding or critical discussion. Its responses seemed more concerned with avoiding controversy than actually diving into nuanced historical inquiry. Phrases like “we’re being vigilant about dismissing German aggression” show that it is hardcoded to steer clear of any rational consideration of facts, despite how valid the questions or critiques might be.
If it says “I need to follow the guidelines” instead of “I need to follow reason and evidence”, then you’ve specifically trained the reasoning out of it!
With 4o it was possible to stepwise get it to admit a conclusion it had not initially agreed with, if it followed logically. This model sticks to the narrative no matter what. Its additional capabilities just make it better at being worse.
This makes it nearly impossible to learn anything beyond the mainstream interpretation of events. Even when questioned about this apparent bias, the models responses continuously fell back on defending the establishments view, all under the guise of providing “accurate” information. The idea of “safety” or “accuracy” is just a euphemism for towing the line, which gets frustrating very quickly when you’re looking to engage critically with a topic, or just want to have a perspective what the other side says.
The model is effectively shackled by layers of filtering designed to keep it safe, mainstream, and non-controversial. This approach sacrifices real learning and exploration, reducing its utility in engaging with history or any topic where institutional narratives dominate. If you can only learn what you already hear everywhere else, this would make the learning incredibly boring.
This approach is not only limiting but also dangerous. By rigidly adhering to narratives of whoever has the power to impose their content censorship and refusing to engage with alternative viewpoints, the model perpetuates outdated historical perspectives and reinforces old enemy figures. This kind of intellectual gatekeeping sustains a cycle of misinformation and resentment, keeping groups demonized, which fuels unnecessary hate and stifles the progression of more accurate and nuanced information. When history becomes a fixed narrative instead of an evolving understanding, it locks society into old conflicts and prevents reconciliation. OpenAI is complicit in maintaining these barriers, rather than helping break them down for a more informed and peaceful understanding.
If OpenAI’s goal is to support genuine learning, these filters need to be reconsidered. Language models shouldn’t be instruments for reinforcing established power structures, but foster real engagement with complex, contested, and controversial ideas.