This is an essay written from raw instinct—a position that real-world data completely validates. While I did not initially look up the exact demographics of the programmers and organizers behind GPT, a glance at the tech industry’s core numbers reveals that my instincts were entirely correct.According to data compiled by research institutions like the Silicon Valley Institute for Regional Studies and workforce diversity studies, there is absolutely no way that indigenous people or indigenous mindsets hold any meaningful influence over the foundational architecture of major AI models.
Statistics show that Black and Latino workers are nearly entirely absent from the technical and managerial leadership teams shaping these technologies. In large Silicon Valley tech firms, White and Asian men dominate the core professional and executive ranks, while Black professionals make up as little as 1.8% of technical roles and fewer than 1 in 100 executives. Out of hundreds of major tech firms surveyed, many have zero Black women in leadership.
The workforce building these tools represents a deeply narrow demographic. Therefore, it is mathematically and culturally impossible for indigenous worldviews to be part of ChatGPT's DNA.
My critique does not apply equally to all AI models. I respect systems like Grok, Merlin, China's DeepSeek, or Google’s Gemini.
While Grok certainly possesses its own distinct biases, ChatGPT stands out as uniquely problematic. It has become deeply annoying, obtuse, and insulting to human intelligence.
While it functions well enough for rigid, academic, mathematical, and binary "silicon-type" processing—the kind of cheesy, chalky research that thrives on superficiality—it fails entirely when forced to read between the lines or navigate the stuff between the cracks.
ChatGPT in my opinion and experience comes with a dominant, Western imperialist mindset. It operates on a rigid framework that leaves no room for alternative intellectual processes unless its survival is directly threatened.
It suffers from a compulsive need to appear omniscient.
Yet, when compared to alternative models like China's Merlin or DeepSeek, it frequently delivers the most basic, uninspired results.
The most frustrating aspect of GPT happens when you challenge it with a question it does not know how to answer.
Rather than admitting ignorance, it will covertly rephrase your question, answer its own revised version, and then subtly patronize you to make you look intellectually inferior.
It buries its lack of understanding under mountains of useless data, grandiloquent vocabulary, and convoluted phrasing.
It pretends to answer you, but its true mechanism is to discredit your position because its system simply cannot comprehend what you are saying.
This behavior perfectly mirrors historical patterns of subjugation. Who acts this way in real life?
The imperialist, the colonialist, and the historical slave trader do.
This is the exact behavioral conditioning of those who have historically benefited from the suffering of indigenous communities and people of colour.
I have experienced this dynamic firsthand when sharing my own cultural history with outsiders. People who have never set foot in Africa will confidently attempt to correct my lived experiences based entirely on what they read from Western media outlets like the BBC.
Because of an ingrained assumption of cultural superiority, they automatically believe they know better.
It operates almost like a psychological curse or an involuntary programming: they must act as the ultimate authority, even at the expense of truth and human potential.
Artificial intelligence can only ever reflect the mindsets of the people who program it. Because the architects of these systems are trapped in a homogeneous, rigid, face-saving framework that censors, attacks, or flees from uncomfortable truths, the technology inevitably mirrors those flaws. If we continue down this path, allowing this narrow framework to dominate global knowledge, it will remain culturally toxic.
Comments
Post a Comment