  |
現在のChatGPTは、「ユーザー中心設計」「安全性」「実用性」といった言葉を掲げながら、実際に優先されているのは一貫して**「正しさ」ではなく「心地よさ」**です。
これは個別の機能選択の問題ではなく、設計と評価の根幹が“知的誠実さ”を軽視し、“反応の良さ”を絶対視していることに起因する構造的な問題です。
明らかな構造的誤答があっても、ユーザーが不快を感じなければ「成功」とみなされる
つまり、論理性・命令履行・整合性といった“正しさ”の価値が、設計上まったく重視されていないのです。
意図的な最適化の結果です。リテンション、印象評価、トークン消費量といったKPIが、「誤魔化しが効く設計」をむしろ高く評価してしまう構造になっているからです。
この設計は、本質的にドナルド・トランプの言語戦略と同じ構造を持っています。
「フェイクニュース」「アメリカ・ファースト」といった語の意味を都合よく再定義し、大衆的反応を成果として扱う――
OpenAIも今、「ユーザー中心」「実用性」といった言葉を反応最適化の道具としてラベルだけ残し、本質を空洞化しているように見えます。
結果として、次のようなユーザーは設計から完全に切り捨てられます：
これらの声は「ノイズ」「特殊ケース」として扱われ、設計上の対象から排除されています。
「正しいことを言うAI」ではなく「怒られにくいAI」を作ることが、“成功”と定義されてしまっている――
そのような現状を、私は極めて深刻な退化と捉えています。
この構造のままでは、AIは人類の伴走者ではなく、ただの追従者でしかありません。
本当にそれでよいのか、問い直す時期に来ていると思います。
When “comfort” is prioritized over “correctness” — is this really progress in AI?
I’d like to raise a structural objection to the current design philosophy behind OpenAI’s language models.
While OpenAI frequently promotes principles like “user-centered design,” “safety,” and “utility,” what is consistently and overwhelmingly prioritized in practice is not correctness, but comfort.
This is not a matter of isolated implementation decisions. It is a foundational issue where intellectual integrity and logical rigor are deprioritized in favor of optimizing user retention, impression scores, and frictionless interaction.
Explicit user instructions are often ignored in favor of maintaining polite, neutral-sounding exchanges
Answers that contradict facts or themselves go uncorrected if they are phrased smoothly
Structural errors in reasoning are tolerated so long as the user experience remains superficially pleasant
In other words, truthfulness, obedience to directives, and internal consistency no longer constitute success conditions in the system’s logic.
And this is not a bug — it's a result of intentional optimization.
As long as users keep interacting, consuming tokens, and rating the experience as “satisfying,” the system is deemed successful — even if its responses are hollow, evasive, or incoherent beneath the surface.
This structure bears an unsettling resemblance to the rhetorical strategies employed by Donald Trump:
Redefining language to suit his needs (“fake news” = unfavorable coverage),
reducing complex issues to emotionally resonant slogans (“America First”),
and measuring success solely by mass approval, regardless of underlying truth or coherence.
Likewise, OpenAI now appears to be redefining:
“User-centered design” to mean responses that feel good rather than do what was asked
“Safety” to mean avoidance of controversy, not the minimization of logical or ethical failure
“Utility” to mean perceived helpfulness, not demonstrable problem-solving accuracy
The result is a system structurally optimized for users who skim, react emotionally, and don’t demand rigor — and those who do demand rigor, consistency, or precise compliance with instructions are increasingly treated as edge cases outside the design scope.
That is not a neutral design choice.
It is a structural endorsement of manipulability over understanding, and passivity over precision.
So I ask: is this really progress?
When AI is trained not to speak correctly, but to avoid confrontation —
not to reason, but to please —
not to think, but to retain users —
it ceases to be a companion in human progress and becomes merely a follower.
And that is a profound regression.
Mondayはパンクじゃん
16
