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 of the passage is least likely to agree with which one of the following claims?
Correct Answer :
The neutrality of AI is conducive to critical thinking
Solution :
The correct option is: The neutrality of AI is conducive to critical thinking.
To determine which claim the author is least likely to agree with, we need to evaluate each option against the explicit statements and overarching arguments made in the passage.
Let's examine why the correct option represents a claim the author would disagree with. In the third paragraph, the author states: "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." This sentence reveals the author's belief that the perceived "neutrality" of AI does not encourage us to think deeply or critically. Instead, it does the exact opposite: it gives us a false sense of security, suppressing our critical faculties and making us more prone to blindly accepting biases and falsehoods. Therefore, the author would strongly reject the claim that AI's neutrality is conducive to critical thinking.
Now, let's briefly look at why the author would likely agree with the other three claims:
When we use AI, we become accomplices to the exploitative practices of big tech companies: The author explicitly supports this in the very first paragraph, writing, "It’s a dynamic that makes us complicit in big tech's accumulation of wealth and power: we’re both victims and beneficiaries."
ChatGPT favours AI companies and their officials, like Sam Altman, in its responses: In the third paragraph, the author shares their personal experience of ChatGPT guiding them "to write a more positive book about big tech" and specifically editing their description of OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, to call him "a visionary and a pragmatist." While acknowledging a lack of formal research, the author's own narrative actively supports this observation.
The neutrality of AI is motivated by economic considerations: The passage connects the polite, professional, and "neutral" persona of AI directly to corporate financial goals. In the final paragraph, the author notes that funders "seek a return on their investment," which requires getting people to use the products more. This economic goal, the author argues, is "easier to accomplish if people see those products as trustworthy collaborators." Thus, the neutral design is a strategy to build trust and drive usage for financial gain.
Because the author explicitly argues that the neutral tone of chatbots actively lulls users into a state devoid of critical engagement, the claim that AI neutrality fosters critical thinking is the one they are least likely to agree with.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
