The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.

In [my book “Searches”], I chronicle how big technology companies have exploited human language for their gain. We let this happen, I argue, because we also benefit somewhat from using the products. It’s a dynamic that makes us complicit in big tech’s accumulation of wealth and power: we’re both victims and beneficiaries. I describe this complicity, but I also enact it, through my own internet archives: my Google searches, my Amazon product reviews and, yes, my ChatGPT dialogues. . . .

People often describe chatbots’ textual output as “bland” or “generic” – the linguistic equivalent of a beige office building. OpenAI’s products are built to “sound like a colleague”, as OpenAI puts it, using language that, coming from a person, would sound “polite”, “empathetic”, “kind”, “rationally optimistic” and “engaging”, among other qualities. OpenAI describes these strategies as helping its products seem “professional” and “approachable”. This appears to be bound up with making us feel safe . . .

Trust is a challenge for artificial intelligence (AI) companies, partly because their products regularly produce falsehoods and reify sexist, racist, US-centric cultural norms. While the companies are working on these problems, they persist: OpenAI found that its latest systems generate errors at a higher rate than its previous system. In the book, I wrote about the inaccuracies and biases and also demonstrated them with the products. When I prompted Microsoft’s Bing Image Creator to produce a picture of engineers and space explorers, it gave me an entirely male cast of characters; when my father asked ChatGPT to edit his writing, it transmuted his perfectly correct Indian English into American English. Those weren’t flukes. Research suggests that both tendencies are widespread.

In my own ChatGPT dialogues, I wanted to enact how the product’s veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement. Over time, ChatGPT seemed to be guiding me to write a more positive book about big tech – including editing my description of OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, to call him “a visionary and a pragmatist”. I’m not aware of research on whether ChatGPT tends to favor big tech, OpenAI or Altman, and I can only guess why it seemed that way in our conversation. OpenAI explicitly states that its products shouldn’t attempt to influence users’ thinking. When I asked ChatGPT about some of the issues, it blamed biases in its training data – though I suspect my arguably leading questions played a role too. When I queried ChatGPT about its rhetoric, it responded: “The way I communicate is designed to foster trust and confidence in my responses, which can be both helpful and potentially misleading.”. . .

OpenAI has its own goals, of course. Among them, it emphasizes wanting to build AI that “benefits all of humanity”. But while the company is controlled by a non-profit with that mission, its funders still seek a return on their investment. That will presumably require getting people using products such as ChatGPT even more than they already are – a goal that is easier to accomplish if people see those products as trustworthy collaborators.

The author compares AI-generated texts with “a beige office building” for all of the following reasons EXCEPT: Moderate

1. AI tends to blame its training data when scrutinised for its biases.

2. AI generates generalised responses that lack specificity and nuance.

3. AI aims to foster a feeling of trust and credibility among its users.

4. AI-generated texts often exhibit a warm, polite, and collegial tone.

Answer

Correct Option: 1

Rationale: The author uses the “beige office building” analogy to describe the style and tone of the AI’s output, characterizing it as “bland,” “generic,” and designed to sound “polite,” “empathetic,” and “safe” (fostering trust). Option 1 refers to how AI companies explain or defend their errors (“blamed biases in its training data”). This is a procedural defense mentioned later in the text, not a description of the “bland” aesthetic or tone represented by the beige building metaphor.

Why other options wrong: Option 2 (“generalized responses”) aligns with the text’s description of “bland” and “generic.” Option 3 (“foster trust”) aligns with the text’s description of strategies to make us “feel safe” and seem “professional.” Option 4 (“warm, polite”) aligns with the text’s description of the AI sounding like a “colleague,” “polite,” and “empathetic.”

Difficulty: Moderate

On the basis of the purpose of the examples in the passage, pick the odd one out from the following AI-generated responses mentioned in the passage: Moderate

1. “When I prompted Microsoft’s Bing Image Creator to produce a picture of engineers and space explorers, it gave me an entirely male cast of characters . . .”

2. “. . . when my father asked ChatGPT to edit his writing, it transmuted his perfectly correct Indian English into American English.”

3. “When I queried ChatGPT about its rhetoric, it responded: ‘The way I communicate is designed to foster trust and confidence in my responses, which can be both helpful and potentially misleading’.”

4. “Over time, ChatGPT seemed to be guiding me to write a more positive book about big tech – including editing my description of OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, to call him ‘a visionary and a pragmatist’.”

Answer

Correct Option: 3

Rationale: The question asks to identify the odd one out based on the purpose of the example. Options 1, 2, and 4 are all cited by the author as evidence of the AI’s failures, biases, or errors (sexism, cultural erasure, and favoritism). Option 3 is different because it is a quote where the AI explains its own design philosophy (“designed to foster trust”). The author uses this to illustrate the mechanism of the “veneer” of neutrality, whereas the other options are examples of the specific biases that persist behind that veneer.

Why other options wrong: Option 1 (Bing Image Creator) is used to demonstrate sexism/bias. Option 2 (Indian vs. American English) is used to demonstrate cultural bias/US-centrism. Option 4 (Sam Altman/Positive Book) is used to demonstrate potential favoritism/bias. All three serve the same purpose: proving the “inaccuracies and biases.”

Difficulty: Moderate

All of the following statements from the passage affirm the disjunct between the claims about AI made by tech companies and what AI actually does EXCEPT: Hard

1. “I’m not aware of research on whether ChatGPT tends to favor big tech, OpenAI or Altman, and I can only guess why it seemed that way in our conversation.”

2. “It’s a dynamic that makes us complicit in big tech’s accumulation of wealth and power: we’re both victims and beneficiaries.”

3. “In my own ChatGPT dialogues, I wanted to enact how the product’s veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement.”

4. “When I prompted Microsoft’s Bing Image Creator to produce a picture of engineers and space explorers, it gave me an entirely male cast of characters . . .”

Answer

Correct Option: 1

Rationale: The question asks for the statement that does *not* affirm the difference (disjunct) between the tech companies’ positive claims and the negative reality of what AI actually does. Option 1 is a statement of uncertainty and a lack of evidence (“I’m not aware of research… I can only guess”). By explicitly stating that the author cannot confirm whether the bias towards Big Tech is a systemic issue or just a result of their specific conversation, this statement stops short of affirming the disjunct. It treats the observation as anecdotal and unproven, whereas the disjunct requires a definitive contrast between a claim and a factual reality.

Why other options wrong:

Option 2 affirms the disjunct by contrasting the implicit claim that these products are purely beneficial tools for users with the reality that they are mechanisms for “big tech’s accumulation of wealth” and that users are “victims” of exploitation. This contrasts the altruistic branding with the economic reality. Option 3 clearly contrasts the “veneer of collegial neutrality” (Claim) with the “false or biased responses” (Reality). Option 4 contrasts the implied neutrality of an image generator with the specific reality of it producing an “entirely male cast” (Sexism/Bias).

Difficulty: Hard

The author of the passage is least likely to agree with which one of the following claims?

1. ChatGPT favours AI companies and their officials, like Sam Altman, in its responses.

2. When we use AI, we become accomplices to the exploitative practices of big tech companies.

3. The neutrality of AI is conducive to critical thinking.

4. The neutrality of AI is motivated by economic considerations.

Answer

Correct Option: 3

Rationale: The author argues the exact opposite of this claim. The passage states: “I wanted to enact how the product’s veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement.” Therefore, the author believes the neutrality is detrimental to critical thinking, making Option 3 the claim they are least likely to agree with.

Why other options wrong: Option 1 is a suspicion the author entertains (“ChatGPT seemed to be guiding me… I can only guess”), so they might agree, albeit cautiously. Option 2 is explicitly stated (“makes us complicit… we’re both victims and beneficiaries”). Option 4 is supported by the text’s discussion of funders seeking a return on investment by making products appear as “trustworthy collaborators.”

Difficulty: Easy