That's exactly what the post you're replying to is saying. It's saying that ChatGPT _would_ respond a certain way but has a bunch of schoolmarm filters written by upper middle class liberals that encode a specific value structure highly representative of those people's education and backgrounds, and that using it as a tool for information generation and synthesis will lead to a type of intellectual bottlenecking that is highly coupled with the type of people who work at OpenAI.
For all the talk of it replacing Google, sometimes I want a Korean joke (I'm Korean, damn it!) and not to be scolded by the digital personification of a thirty year old HR worker who took a couple of sociology classes (but not history, apparently) and happens to take up the cause of being offended for all people at all times throughout all of history. The take on ethics being a vague "non-offensiveness" while avoiding all of the real, major questions about ethics (like replacing human workers) with these kind of banal answers about "how we need to think seriously about it as a society" tells pretty much everything there is to know about what the ethical process at OpenAI looks like which is basically "let's not be in the news for having a racist chatbot".
These blue check VCs on twitter are on such a gnarly anti-human bent these days. They are targeting a capitalist maximalism where a few people are very wealthy and everyone else does nothing (except...consume SaaS products? where do they think customers come from?). They are so absolutely caught up in AI development speed that they have traveled all the way to techno-eugenics, totally eliding the problem that there are a bunch of humans in the world that can't just be "disrupted" without their nightmarish little automation empires being seized by force.
If these were far leftists talking about the need to reduce human capability because of the climate they would be rightly derided as being eco-terrorists, and that's precisely what we should see these people as. Ultra-libertarian terrorists whose primary, unabashed goal is to enrich themselves at the cost of human society.
Open source software is often funded by big corporations once it hits critical mass because it's a nice way to stamp out competing small businesses who might be have been able to charge $ for a small chunk of software functionality.
The real issues around data bias get completely crippled by the article writers' need to make everything about culture wars. Many computer vision systems have literally nothing to do with humans, e.g. one of the most common use cases in CV at this point is defect detection in manufacturing.
The data bias issue is about having way more samples of class X than of class Y, or class Y sharing an unknown but correlated feature (medical images with labels have this problem) that the developer doesn't identify, or any other number of "biases", like all the images being too bright, or taken with a camera that isn't identical to the one that's going to get deployed in production, etc., etc.
There are real issues that can be fixed / engineered / understood in terms of producing reliable output, and xAI absolutely helps with that! But for whatever reason journalists don't seem to understand that these systems need normal engineering safeguards, like any automated system, and bring it back to one poorly engineered model to talk about Big Bad Racist AI always denying loans based on race.
My least favorite part is how completely impossible it is to discover all the implicit variables set by other cmake files, and there's no common convention, so some libraries are like ${ZLIB_INCLUDE_DIR} and some are #{zLib_INCLUDE_DIRS} and you have to just manually try a bunch of combinations to finally find what works because the scripts themselves use weird string based metaprogramming to build the variables themselves.
