Comprehension
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 up 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 my ChatGPT dialogues. . . .
People often describe chatbots’ 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.
Question: 1
The author of the passage is least likely to agree with which one of the following claims?
The author of the passage is least likely to agree with which one of the following claims?
Show Hint
Be cautious of the neutrality claims made by AI systems. Often, they may not be truly neutral but instead reflect the interests of the companies behind them.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
- When we use AI, we become accomplices to the exploitative practices of big tech companies.
- The neutrality of AI is conducive to critical thinking.
- The neutrality of AI is motivated by economic considerations.
- ChatGPT favours AI companies and their officials, like Sam Altman, in its responses.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Approach Solution - 1
Approach: "Least likely to agree" means find the option the author would reject. The author's thesis across the passage is that AI's polished, "neutral" tone is precisely what disarms our critical engagement, so any claim that AI neutrality helps critical thinking is the one she'd disown.
Step 1: Anchor each option to the text. Option (1) draws on "we're both victims and beneficiaries" and "this complicity", the author explicitly says using the products makes us complicit, so she agrees.
Step 2: Option (3) is supported by the closing lines, funders "seek a return on their investment" and that requires people trusting and using ChatGPT more, so the trustworthy, neutral veneer is economically motivated, she agrees.
Step 3: Option (4) maps to "ChatGPT seemed to be guiding me to write a more positive book about big tech, including editing my description of Sam Altman to call him 'a visionary and a pragmatist'", she observed this favouring, so she'd agree (cautiously).
Step 4: Option (2) claims AI's neutrality is conducive to critical thinking. The author argues the reverse, the "veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement". Neutrality dulls scrutiny, it does not sharpen it. This is the claim she is least likely to agree with.
Final answer: Option (2).
Step 1: Anchor each option to the text. Option (1) draws on "we're both victims and beneficiaries" and "this complicity", the author explicitly says using the products makes us complicit, so she agrees.
Step 2: Option (3) is supported by the closing lines, funders "seek a return on their investment" and that requires people trusting and using ChatGPT more, so the trustworthy, neutral veneer is economically motivated, she agrees.
Step 3: Option (4) maps to "ChatGPT seemed to be guiding me to write a more positive book about big tech, including editing my description of Sam Altman to call him 'a visionary and a pragmatist'", she observed this favouring, so she'd agree (cautiously).
Step 4: Option (2) claims AI's neutrality is conducive to critical thinking. The author argues the reverse, the "veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement". Neutrality dulls scrutiny, it does not sharpen it. This is the claim she is least likely to agree with.
Final answer: Option (2).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
Approach: Instead of checking all four options against the text one by one, isolate the author's single central claim and see which option directly negates it.
The whole piece pivots on one idea: AI's calm, "neutral" surface is dangerous precisely because it disarms scrutiny. The author states this plainly, the "veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement." That is her thesis, in her own words: neutrality reduces critical thinking.
Option (2) says the opposite in almost mirror language: neutrality is "conducive to critical thinking." Since this is the exact reverse of the sentence carrying the author's core argument, it is automatically the claim she is least likely to endorse, independent of the sub-arguments about complicity, economics, or Sam Altman, which are supporting illustrations rather than the thesis itself.
Answer: Option (2).
The whole piece pivots on one idea: AI's calm, "neutral" surface is dangerous precisely because it disarms scrutiny. The author states this plainly, the "veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement." That is her thesis, in her own words: neutrality reduces critical thinking.
Option (2) says the opposite in almost mirror language: neutrality is "conducive to critical thinking." Since this is the exact reverse of the sentence carrying the author's core argument, it is automatically the claim she is least likely to endorse, independent of the sub-arguments about complicity, economics, or Sam Altman, which are supporting illustrations rather than the thesis itself.
Answer: Option (2).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
On the basis of the purpose of the examples in the passage, pick the odd one out from the following AI-generated responses mentioned in the passage:
On the basis of the purpose of the examples in the passage, pick the odd one out from the following AI-generated responses mentioned in the passage:
Show Hint
Pay attention to how AI systems self-reflect and how they guide users towards specific perspectives, which may influence the user's thinking.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
- “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.”
- “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.’”
- “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’.”
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
Approach: This is an odd-one-out built on purpose. Group the four AI responses by the job the author gives each example. Three serve one function; the fourth serves a different one and is the misfit.
Step 1: Sort by purpose. The author cites most AI outputs to expose flaws, bias, error, or quiet manipulation. Option (1), the all-male engineers and explorers, demonstrates gender bias. Option (2), Indian English silently "corrected" to American English, demonstrates US-centric bias. Option (4), ChatGPT nudging her toward a rosier view of big tech and re-labelling Altman "a visionary and a pragmatist", demonstrates manipulative steering. All three are the author catching the product misbehaving.
Step 2: Option (3) is different in kind. Here ChatGPT, when asked about its own rhetoric, admits that its trust-building communication "can be both helpful and potentially misleading". This is the product's self-reflective confession, not an instance of bias the author has uncovered. The function is acknowledgement, not demonstration of a flaw.
Step 3: Since (1), (2) and (4) all show the AI committing a fault while (3) shows the AI commenting on itself, (3) breaks the pattern.
Final answer: Option (3).
Step 1: Sort by purpose. The author cites most AI outputs to expose flaws, bias, error, or quiet manipulation. Option (1), the all-male engineers and explorers, demonstrates gender bias. Option (2), Indian English silently "corrected" to American English, demonstrates US-centric bias. Option (4), ChatGPT nudging her toward a rosier view of big tech and re-labelling Altman "a visionary and a pragmatist", demonstrates manipulative steering. All three are the author catching the product misbehaving.
Step 2: Option (3) is different in kind. Here ChatGPT, when asked about its own rhetoric, admits that its trust-building communication "can be both helpful and potentially misleading". This is the product's self-reflective confession, not an instance of bias the author has uncovered. The function is acknowledgement, not demonstration of a flaw.
Step 3: Since (1), (2) and (4) all show the AI committing a fault while (3) shows the AI commenting on itself, (3) breaks the pattern.
Final answer: Option (3).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
Approach: Instead of grouping by what each quote proves, group by what kind of request produced it, an ordinary task, or a question aimed at the AI itself.
Three of the quotes come from the author giving ChatGPT (or Bing) a normal, real-world task, generate an image, edit some writing, edit a book manuscript, and then noticing the biased or manipulative result baked into that task's output. The bias surfaces as a side-effect of ordinary use.
The third option is different in kind: the author is not asking for a task to be done, she is directly interrogating the system, "I queried ChatGPT about its rhetoric." The resulting quote is the AI commenting on its own communication style, not a task output with a hidden flaw. Since this example arises from a different kind of prompt (a question about the AI) rather than an ordinary request (a task for the AI to perform), it does not belong with the other three.
Answer: Option (3).
Three of the quotes come from the author giving ChatGPT (or Bing) a normal, real-world task, generate an image, edit some writing, edit a book manuscript, and then noticing the biased or manipulative result baked into that task's output. The bias surfaces as a side-effect of ordinary use.
The third option is different in kind: the author is not asking for a task to be done, she is directly interrogating the system, "I queried ChatGPT about its rhetoric." The resulting quote is the AI commenting on its own communication style, not a task output with a hidden flaw. Since this example arises from a different kind of prompt (a question about the AI) rather than an ordinary request (a task for the AI to perform), it does not belong with the other three.
Answer: Option (3).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
All of the following statements from the passage affirm the disjunct between the claims about AI made by tech companies and what AI actually does EXCEPT:
All of the following statements from the passage affirm the disjunct between the claims about AI made by tech companies and what AI actually does EXCEPT:
Show Hint
Be aware of how AI systems may reflect the interests of large companies, influencing responses that align with their goals.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
- “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.”
- “It’s a dynamic that makes us complicit in big tech’s accumulation of wealth and power: we’re both victims and beneficiaries.”
- “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 . . .”
- “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.”
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
Approach: This is an "EXCEPT" question on an inference: four of the options must affirm the gap ("disjunct") between what tech companies claim AI does and what it actually does. The odd one out is the line that does NOT establish such a gap. Read each line for whether it points to a contradiction between claim and reality.
Step 1 \(-\) Fix the target idea: The "disjunct" means a mismatch \(-\) AI is sold as neutral, fair and trustworthy, but in practice it favours big tech, produces biased outputs, or quietly nudges users into accepting falsehoods. Three statements should demonstrate exactly that mismatch.
Step 2 \(-\) Test each option:
Option 2 \(-\) "makes us complicit in big tech's accumulation of wealth and power: we're both victims and beneficiaries" \(-\) directly names the gap between AI's promised benefit and the actual power it concentrates. This AFFIRMS the disjunct.
Option 3 \(-\) Bing Image Creator returning "an entirely male cast" for engineers and explorers is a concrete instance of biased output contradicting the claim of neutrality. This AFFIRMS the disjunct.
Option 4 \(-\) the product's "veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses" \(-\) explicitly contrasts the appearance of neutrality with biased reality. This AFFIRMS the disjunct.
Step 3 \(-\) Isolate the exception: Option 1 \(-\) "I'm not aware of research on whether ChatGPT tends to favor big tech . . . and I can only guess why it seemed that way" \(-\) is a confession of uncertainty. The author admits there is no evidence and is only speculating. It neither claims nor demonstrates any real mismatch between corporate promise and AI behaviour, so it does not affirm the disjunct.
Answer: Option 1.
Step 1 \(-\) Fix the target idea: The "disjunct" means a mismatch \(-\) AI is sold as neutral, fair and trustworthy, but in practice it favours big tech, produces biased outputs, or quietly nudges users into accepting falsehoods. Three statements should demonstrate exactly that mismatch.
Step 2 \(-\) Test each option:
Option 2 \(-\) "makes us complicit in big tech's accumulation of wealth and power: we're both victims and beneficiaries" \(-\) directly names the gap between AI's promised benefit and the actual power it concentrates. This AFFIRMS the disjunct.
Option 3 \(-\) Bing Image Creator returning "an entirely male cast" for engineers and explorers is a concrete instance of biased output contradicting the claim of neutrality. This AFFIRMS the disjunct.
Option 4 \(-\) the product's "veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses" \(-\) explicitly contrasts the appearance of neutrality with biased reality. This AFFIRMS the disjunct.
Step 3 \(-\) Isolate the exception: Option 1 \(-\) "I'm not aware of research on whether ChatGPT tends to favor big tech . . . and I can only guess why it seemed that way" \(-\) is a confession of uncertainty. The author admits there is no evidence and is only speculating. It neither claims nor demonstrates any real mismatch between corporate promise and AI behaviour, so it does not affirm the disjunct.
Answer: Option 1.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
Approach: Scan the four quotes for language of certainty versus language of hedging. A statement can only expose a gap between what AI is claimed to do and what it actually does if it asserts something definite about that gap; a statement that admits uncertainty cannot be doing that job.
Option (1) is built entirely out of hedges, "not aware of research," "I can only guess." These phrases explicitly disclaim knowledge rather than assert a contradiction. There is no definite claim here for a gap to attach to.
By contrast, option (2) asserts a definite relationship (complicity in wealth accumulation), option (3) reports a definite, observed outcome (an all-male image set), and option (4) makes a definite claim about the effect of a "veneer" of neutrality. Each of these commits to something concrete that can be measured against AI's promised neutrality.
Since only option (1) is pure hedged uncertainty with nothing definite to contrast against a claim, it is the one that does not affirm the disjunct.
Answer: Option (1).
Option (1) is built entirely out of hedges, "not aware of research," "I can only guess." These phrases explicitly disclaim knowledge rather than assert a contradiction. There is no definite claim here for a gap to attach to.
By contrast, option (2) asserts a definite relationship (complicity in wealth accumulation), option (3) reports a definite, observed outcome (an all-male image set), and option (4) makes a definite claim about the effect of a "veneer" of neutrality. Each of these commits to something concrete that can be measured against AI's promised neutrality.
Since only option (1) is pure hedged uncertainty with nothing definite to contrast against a claim, it is the one that does not affirm the disjunct.
Answer: Option (1).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
The author compares AI-generated texts with “a beige office building” for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:
The author compares AI-generated texts with “a beige office building” for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:
Show Hint
Critique AI’s neutrality by considering how it may overly simplify responses and reflect corporate interests, rather than offering truly unbiased insights.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
- AI generates generalized responses that lack specificity and nuance.
- AI-generated texts often exhibit a warm, polite, and collegial tone.
- AI aims to foster a feeling of trust and credibility among its users.
- AI tends to blame its training data when scrutinized for its biases.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
Approach: The "beige office building" is a metaphor for AI text \(-\) bland, inoffensive, polished, designed to feel safe and trustworthy. The EXCEPT answer is the option that captures something a beige office building does NOT symbolise. Match each option to a property of the metaphor.
Step 1 \(-\) Unpack the metaphor: A beige office building is generic and unremarkable (no sharp edges, nothing memorable), pleasantly neutral, and engineered to project calm reliability. So the metaphor is about the bland, reassuring *tone and texture* of AI output.
Step 2 \(-\) Match the supporting options:
Option 1 \(-\) "generalized responses that lack specificity and nuance" maps onto "generic/bland." This is a reason for the comparison.
Option 2 \(-\) a "warm, polite, collegial tone" maps onto the pleasant, unthreatening surface of the building. This is a reason for the comparison.
Option 3 \(-\) fostering "trust and credibility" maps onto the building's air of safe, dependable neutrality. This is a reason for the comparison.
Step 3 \(-\) Find the misfit: Option 4 \(-\) "AI tends to blame its training data when scrutinized for its biases" \(-\) describes how AI *deflects criticism*, an active defensive behaviour. That has nothing to do with the bland, trust-inspiring *tone* the beige-building image is built to convey. It is the reason NOT used for the comparison.
Answer: Option 4.
Step 1 \(-\) Unpack the metaphor: A beige office building is generic and unremarkable (no sharp edges, nothing memorable), pleasantly neutral, and engineered to project calm reliability. So the metaphor is about the bland, reassuring *tone and texture* of AI output.
Step 2 \(-\) Match the supporting options:
Option 1 \(-\) "generalized responses that lack specificity and nuance" maps onto "generic/bland." This is a reason for the comparison.
Option 2 \(-\) a "warm, polite, collegial tone" maps onto the pleasant, unthreatening surface of the building. This is a reason for the comparison.
Option 3 \(-\) fostering "trust and credibility" maps onto the building's air of safe, dependable neutrality. This is a reason for the comparison.
Step 3 \(-\) Find the misfit: Option 4 \(-\) "AI tends to blame its training data when scrutinized for its biases" \(-\) describes how AI *deflects criticism*, an active defensive behaviour. That has nothing to do with the bland, trust-inspiring *tone* the beige-building image is built to convey. It is the reason NOT used for the comparison.
Answer: Option 4.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
Approach Solution -2
Approach: Ask whether each option describes a static impression the text creates, or an active behaviour it performs when challenged. A beige office building is a passive image, plain, calming, forgettable, it does not "do" anything, it simply looks a certain way.
Options (1), (2) and (3) all describe how AI text comes across: generic and lacking nuance, warm and collegial in tone, and designed to feel trustworthy. These are all matters of impression or appearance, exactly what a beige building conveys just by standing there.
Option (4) describes something AI does in response to being questioned, shifting blame onto its training data when scrutinised. That is a reaction to pressure, not a passive visual or tonal quality, so it cannot be part of a metaphor about a building's calm, unremarkable appearance.
Answer: Option (4).
Options (1), (2) and (3) all describe how AI text comes across: generic and lacking nuance, warm and collegial in tone, and designed to feel trustworthy. These are all matters of impression or appearance, exactly what a beige building conveys just by standing there.
Option (4) describes something AI does in response to being questioned, shifting blame onto its training data when scrutinised. That is a reaction to pressure, not a passive visual or tonal quality, so it cannot be part of a metaphor about a building's calm, unremarkable appearance.
Answer: Option (4).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CAT Questions
- Compare and contrast between Portia and Jessica characters in Merchant of Venice.
- In a triangle ABC,AB=AC=8cm. A circle drawn with BC as diameter passes through A. Another circle drawn with center at A passes through B and C. Then the area,in sq.cm,of the overlapping region between the two circles is
- The simple interest accrued on an amount of Rs.25,000 at the end of three years is Rs.7,500. What would be the compound interest accrued on the same amount at the same rate in the same period?
- What is the sum of all roots of the equation \(|x+4|^2–10|x+4|=24\)?
- A solid metal sphere is melted and smaller spheres of equal radii are formed. 10% of the volume of the sphere is lost in the process. The smaller spheres have a radius which is \(\frac{1}{9}\text{th}\) the larger sphere. If 10 litres of paint were needed to paint the larger sphere,how many litres are needed to paint all the smaller spheres?
View More Questions