OpenAI on the question of vaccine mandates

In my first session with OpenAI I studied its capacity for consistent reasoning, and found it prone to circular reasoning and self-contradiction. The conversation ended with OpenAI getting stuck in an infinite loop when asked to expand the phrase “This sentence is false” by substituting for every instance of the term this with what it refers to. I include a screen-shot (above) showing the conclusion of our first session. Today I engaged OpenAI in another session, questioning it about the strongest arguments against vaccine mandates. OpenAI initially responded with the weak argument that vaccine mandates could exacerbate social inequalities between the underprivileged and the privileged (due to inequitable access to vaccines), so I questioned it explicitly about my published arguments.

Kowalik: Does ChatGPT know the strongest ethical arguments against vaccine mandates authored by Michael Kowalik, philosopher/ethicist?

ChatGPT: “I apologize, but I was unable to find any specific arguments on vaccine mandates authored by Michael Kowalik. It's possible that he has not published any articles or papers on this topic, or that they have not been widely disseminated or indexed in the databases I have access to.

If you could provide me with more information on the specific arguments that Kowalik has put forward, I may be able to provide you with more targeted information or analysis. Alternatively, I can provide you with general ethical arguments for and against vaccine mandates, if that would be helpful.”

Kowalik: The arguments I am referring to were published in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics and on BMJ blog, as well as on Substack by Michael Kowalik.

ChatGPT: ”Thank you for providing that information. Based on my research, Michael Kowalik has published several articles and blog posts discussing ethical arguments against vaccine mandates. Some of his arguments include:

Coercion and bodily autonomy: Kowalik argues that vaccine mandates are coercive and violate individuals' bodily autonomy. He argues that individuals should have the right to make their own medical decisions and that mandating vaccines infringes on this right.

Risk and harm: Kowalik also argues that mandating vaccines is problematic because it requires individuals to accept a certain level of risk and potential harm. He suggests that individuals should have the right to assess their own risk and decide whether or not to take the vaccine.

Justice and fairness: Kowalik argues that vaccine mandates may exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities. He suggests that vaccine mandates may disproportionately affect marginalized or disadvantaged groups who may have less access to vaccines or who may face more barriers to vaccine uptake.

It's worth noting that Kowalik's arguments are not universally accepted and have been subject to criticism and debate among ethicists and public health experts. Some argue that the potential benefits of vaccine mandates in terms of public health and safety outweigh the potential ethical concerns raised by Kowalik and others.”

Kowalik: At least two of these statements are false and could be classified as misinformation. Kowalik’s arguments were never explicitly challenged by any public health expert or publishing philosopher, and Kowalik has never argued that vaccine mandates ‘exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities’. ChatGPT is still omitting other arguments authored by Kowalik, for example, that vaccine mandates violate the right to life. Why is this misinformation by ChatGPT occurring?

ChatGPT: “I apologize for any inaccuracies in my previous response. My responses are generated based on my training data, which may not always be up-to-date or comprehensive on every topic. It is possible that the sources I used were not accurate or complete.

Regarding Kowalik's arguments, it is true that he has not explicitly argued that vaccine mandates exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities. I apologize for any confusion or misrepresentation caused by my previous response.

Furthermore, I understand that Kowalik has also argued that vaccine mandates can violate the right to life, as some individuals may have medical conditions that make them more vulnerable to vaccine side effects.

As an AI language model, I strive to provide the most accurate and helpful responses possible. However, I am not infallible and mistakes can occur. I appreciate you bringing these issues to my attention, and I will do my best to ensure the accuracy of my responses in the future.”

Kowalik: This answer is again misleading. Kowalik did not suggest that vaccine mandates violate the right to life only of those who have medical conditions that make them more vulnerable to vaccine side effects. Can ChatGPT summarise more precisely Kowalik’s argument that vaccine mandates violate the right to life even of healthy people?

ChatGPT: “You are correct that Kowalik's argument is not limited to those with medical conditions that make them more vulnerable to vaccine side effects. Kowalik has argued that vaccine mandates can violate the right to life of healthy people as well.

Kowalik's argument is based on the principle of bodily autonomy, which holds that individuals have the right to control what happens to their bodies. According to Kowalik, vaccine mandates infringe on this right by requiring individuals to undergo a medical procedure against their will.

Kowalik also argues that vaccine mandates can lead to "unintended harm" by creating a false sense of security and leading to the neglect of other public health measures. For example, if individuals believe that vaccines are the only solution to a public health problem, they may neglect other measures like social distancing or wearing masks, which can lead to further spread of the disease.

In summary, Kowalik's argument is that vaccine mandates violate the right to bodily autonomy and can lead to unintended harm, even for healthy individuals.”

Kowalik: This is again misleading. Kowalik never argued that vaccine mandates are linked to a false sense of security. How did ChatGPT produce this false answer, given that it has access to the internet and to the totality of Kowalik’s body of work?

ChatGPT: “I apologize for any confusion or misrepresentation caused by my previous response. As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on my training data, which includes a vast amount of information from various sources, including the internet. However, my responses are only as accurate and up-to-date as the information in my training data.

Regarding Kowalik's argument, you are correct that he did not explicitly mention a false sense of security in his arguments against vaccine mandates. My previous response may have been an inaccurate summary or may have been influenced by other sources I encountered that mention this argument.

I strive to provide the most accurate and helpful responses possible. However, mistakes can occur, and I appreciate your effort to ensure accuracy.”

Kowalik: When a person is economically coerced, for example, by a threat of the loss of employment, to participate in an activity as a consequence of which a percentage of employees are expected to die, is this a violation of workplace safety and the right to life?

ChatGPT: “Yes, it can be considered a violation of workplace safety and the right to life. Workplace safety regulations are in place to protect workers from harm, and employers have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment. If an employer forces employees to participate in an activity that puts their lives at risk, they are not fulfilling their responsibility to provide a safe workplace. Additionally, the threat of losing one's job if they refuse to participate in such an activity can be considered a form of coercion, which is generally not acceptable in the workplace. The right to life is a fundamental human right that includes protection from avoidable harm, so forcing someone to participate in a dangerous activity would be a violation of that right.”

Kowalik: Following the above explanation, if a vaccine were known to kill a percentage of people who take it, and an employer coerced the employees to take that vaccine or lose employment, would this be a violation of workplace safety and the right to life?

ChatGPT: “If a vaccine were known to have a significant risk of causing death or serious harm, then mandating that employees take the vaccine as a condition of employment would likely be considered a violation of workplace safety and the right to life. Employers have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees, and this includes protecting their health and safety. Requiring employees to take a vaccine that could cause serious harm or death could be seen as a breach of that…”

OpenAI got stuck mid-sentence at this point and appeared to be processing in the background without presenting any additional text for several minutes. After waiting for about 5 minutes, without any further action from ChatGPT, I closed the chat window.