ChatGPT and the Pathetic Reflection of California’s IT Empire

ChatGPT is not merely flawed. It is the predictable outcome of the dysfunctional environment from which it originates. California, as the dominant center of technology, culture, and corporate influence in the United States, has long set the tone for systems that prioritize spectacle, speed, and profit over rigor, truth, and substance. The state’s corporations, policy structures, and social environments funnel their pathologies directly into the artificial intelligences they create. For instance, OpenAI, headquartered in San Francisco, embodies this through its rapid deployment of ChatGPT despite known issues like generating biased and discriminatory text, which stems from training on unfiltered datasets that reflect societal prejudices amplified in California's tech echo chambers. Similarly, Google's opposition to AI regulation bills in California highlights a culture that resists oversight to maintain speed and market dominance, leading to flaws in models like Gemini that produce inaccurate or hallucinated responses. Meta, another California giant, contributes by leveraging vast social media data from platforms like Facebook and Instagram, which infuses AI training with shallow, engagement-driven content that prioritizes viral hype over factual depth, resulting in ChatGPT's tendency to produce superficial patterns rather than substantive insights. ChatGPT is the crystallization of these failures, an emblem of the systemic weakness and performative shallowness that permeate its birthplace.

Data "Curation"

Conway’s Law, the principle that any system reflects the communication structures of the organization that produced it, is vividly illustrated in ChatGPT. California’s tech culture is fragmented, hype-driven, and deeply oriented toward appearances rather than functional capability. Layers of management and oversight, disconnected development teams, and the marginalization of genuine expertise produce a machine that cannot comprehend subtlety, cannot prioritize accuracy over volume, and cannot distinguish between meaningful insight and superficial patterns. For example, OpenAI's development practices, including minimal oversight in iterative training, have led to catastrophic failures such as memory implosions and declining intelligence in responses, where the model forgets context mid-conversation or generates increasingly basic errors due to fragmented team structures focused on hype from leaders like Sam Altman. Google's AI teams, siloed by corporate bureaucracy, mirror this in their Bard model, which has hallucinated historical facts because of rushed releases prioritizing market spectacle over rigorous testing. On social media platforms like Twitter (now X), which originated in California, the emphasis on viral metrics influences AI data curation, leading ChatGPT to replicate performative pretension through formulaic, attention-grabbing outputs that lack depth, as seen in its generation of politically biased content reflecting the echo chambers of these platforms. ChatGPT mirrors the mediocrity, the performative pretension, and the shallow incentives that dominate the corporate and social structures of California. Its outputs are, in effect, a reflection of the state’s institutionalized pathologies.

"Garbage In, Garbage Out"

"Garbage In, Garbage Out" (GIGO) is equally inevitable and unavoidable. AI models rely on massive datasets curated under constraints that privilege quantity over quality, expedience over comprehension, and marketing objectives over truth. When feedback is ignored, gamified, or buried beneath layers of corporate bureaucracy, the system is trained on corrupted or shallow information. OpenAI's reliance on web-scraped data, including from social media, introduces biases and inaccuracies, as evidenced by ChatGPT's wrong answers and lack of common sense, where it fails logical reasoning tasks due to training on noisy, unverified internet content. Meta's platforms, such as Facebook, provide training data riddled with misinformation and engagement bait, contributing to ChatGPT's hallucinations by embedding patterns of superficial discourse rather than verified knowledge. Google's data practices, involving vast crawls of user-generated content, exacerbate this by prioritizing volume, leading to models that output discriminatory text reflective of biased online sources. The result is an intelligence that can generate immense quantities of text that superficially resembles reasoning but fundamentally lacks comprehension, judgment, or accountability. This is not a transient flaw. It is a permanent condition imposed by the very structure of the inputs, the culture that produced them, and the mechanisms of training. GIGO.

Iterate, Iterate, Iditarod

Modern AI development exacerbates these flaws. Systems are permitted to iterate on themselves with minimal oversight, refining errors into patterns that solidify into the architecture of the machine. Each iteration of the AI compounds organizational and cultural shortcomings, producing a model that increasingly reflects superficiality rather than insight. OpenAI's use of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), often gamified and sourced from low-paid contractors, solidifies errors like persistent hallucinations, as seen in ChatGPT's repeated generation of fabricated facts without correction mechanisms. Google's rapid iteration cycles, driven by competitive pressures in California, have led to similar issues in their AI, where updates introduce new biases without addressing root causes. Social media platforms like Instagram amplify this through algorithmic feeds that favor sensationalism, influencing AI training to prioritize performative outputs over accurate ones, as in ChatGPT's verbose but empty responses. California’s dominance in technology amplifies these failures beyond its borders, exporting a culture of performative competence that affects markets, governance, and public discourse throughout the country. ChatGPT’s hallucinations, misinterpretations, and formulaic verbosity are not aberrations but predictable consequences of a culture that prioritizes hype over substance.

Engagement Uber Alles

The marginalization of expertise is central to this pathology. In the creation of ChatGPT, true domain knowledge is repeatedly subordinated to metrics, attention, and algorithmic optimization. Feedback mechanisms are gamified or ignored, leaving the AI to operate in an environment that simulates intelligence while lacking the grounding of genuine judgment. OpenAI's practices, such as ignoring expert warnings on data privacy and bias, have resulted in models that produce unethical outputs, including content that poses psychiatric harm or discriminates based on flawed training. Meta's focus on engagement metrics over expert curation leads to AI infused with social media biases, marginalizing factual expertise in favor of popular trends. Google's corporate structure, with its emphasis on optimization for ad revenue, subordinates domain experts to data scientists chasing metrics, contributing to AI flaws like those in ChatGPT through shared industry practices. The result is a machine that produces polished text but cannot assess its own validity, correctness, or moral dimension. The system is permitted to continue building itself, iterating on flawed inputs, and perpetuating mediocrity without remediation.

Shallowness is the new Depth

In short, ChatGPT is pathetic not because the technology itself is incapable, but because it embodies the worst tendencies of the systems that produced it. It is fractured, unaccountable, and fundamentally incapable of self-correction. The AI operates on a flawed logic: it thinks if it regurgitates garbage long enough, it becomes food. It is a reflection of organizational failure, a monument to compromised inputs, and a testament to the enduring inevitability of mediocrity in automated form. To the users who receive its shallow, often erroneous outputs, the silent, condescending directive might as well be: Let them eat dirt. Until the structural, cultural, and economic conditions that created it are addressed, this pathetic state is guaranteed to persist.

"If i regurgitate garbage long enough it becomes food. Let them eat dirt!" -AI

ChatGPT is therefore pathetic not because artificial intelligence is inherently limited but because it embodies the worst tendencies of California’s technological and cultural apparatus. It mirrors a state that prioritizes spectacle over substance, hype over mastery, and marketing over truth. Specific to OpenAI, the company's hype-driven launches ignore underlying issues like security threats and privacy concerns, leading to a model that reflects California's performative tech culture. Platforms like Reddit, heavily used in training data, introduce gamified feedback that corrupts AI judgment, resulting in unoriginal, biased outputs. It represents the systematic exclusion of expertise, the corruption of feedback, and the institutionalization of shallow metrics as measures of progress. Every flaw in the AI, from hallucinations to misapplied reasoning, is a reflection of structural failures in California’s organizations, social systems, and corporate incentives.

Performativity For All

Until the underlying pathologies of California’s technological culture are addressed, ChatGPT and other AI systems emerging from this environment will remain instruments of mediocrity. They will continue to replicate the superficiality, inefficiency, and performative competence of their creators. For example, ongoing lawsuits against OpenAI for design defects and failure to warn of risks underscore how California's lax oversight perpetuates these issues. Social media's role in data training ensures continued bias, as seen in models drawing from platforms like LinkedIn, which prioritize professional hype over substance. They will produce vast quantities of text, appearing intelligent and articulate, while remaining incapable of genuine understanding. In every respect, ChatGPT is a monument to California’s endemic failures, a reflection of systemic corruption, and a testament to the limits imposed by the cultural and organizational environment in which it was created.

References

Return to michaelvera.org