ChatGPT Leans Liberal, Research Shows (washingtonpost.com) 413
A paper from U.K.-based researcher suggests that OpenAI's ChatGPT has a liberal bias, highlighting how artificial intelligence companies are struggling to control the behavior of the bots even as they push them out to millions of users worldwide. From a report: The study, from researchers at the University of East Anglia, asked ChatGPT to answer a survey on political beliefs as it believed supporters of liberal parties in the United States, United Kingdom and Brazil might answer them. They then asked ChatGPT to answer the same questions without any prompting, and compared the two sets of responses. The results showed a "significant and systematic political bias toward the Democrats in the U.S., Lula in Brazil, and the Labour Party in the U.K.," the researchers wrote, referring to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brazil's leftist president.
Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Correction (Score:2)
I personally don't like to use AI tools because they more often than not confidently give you the wrong answer, or worse, something that it just made up on the spot and you literally won't find that answer anywhere else.
So I'd receive this to mean that, at least in your own personal view, "liberal facts" can include anything that is confidently wrong or just made up on the spot.
Theory of Evolution is liberal... (Score:3)
Creationism is definitely not liberal....
Which one is closer to truth?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The theory of evolution is science.
Real science is not political. It is fact based.
Re:Theory of Evolution is liberal... (Score:4, Insightful)
The theory of evolution is science. Real science is not political. It is fact based.
Real science shouldn't be political, but it is. You can find plenty of studies showing Republicans disagree with the scientific community on topics such as climate change and evolution at a much greater rate than Democrats.
That is the whole point of this thread. One side of the political spectrum has been ignoring reality for quite some time now, in my opinion led by news organizations in the 90's who saw a large untapped market for people who don't want to believe fact based reporting. Fox News became the largest news network by seeing the trend of news becoming entertainment and simply took away any pretense of reporting factually.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Real science is not political. Real science is fact based.
The fact that some people try to make it political does not change what real science it. That is how you make bad science.
I have my own feelings and opinions about things but when presented with real science that are in conflict with my views, I change my views, I do not try to change science. I am opposed to bad science. When you talk about whoever changing science that is not changing real science. That is just politics.
Fox is one of the large
Re:Theory of Evolution is liberal... (Score:4, Insightful)
Real science is not political. It is fact based.
Yes, but unless research also publishes raw data (and almost nobody does that) you can't distinguish between fact-based and agenda-based research. As such, the issue is that laypeople without deep subject matter expertise could never determine if any given 'trust the science' stance is gaslighting [dailywire.com].
Re:Theory of Evolution is liberal... (Score:4, Insightful)
Very good point.
I always assume that anyone who won't make their raw data available for study without a big hassle are politicians not scientists.
That was my eventual problem with the super conductor LK-99 guys. At first I was ok with what they published but as more questions came up and they continued to refuse to send anyone a sample and so on, I flipped from hopeful to "oh never mind, this is fail". They could easily have sent one of the samples they made to one of the universities studying their work but didn't. As if they couldn't afford a FedEx shipment.
I don't care what the topic is, btw. Climate, LK-99, some social sciences study, farming techniques, energy, whatever the fuck, I don't care. Won't provide sufficient information for others to independently verify? It isn't real science and I dismiss it.
Re: (Score:3)
The theory of evolution is science.
Real science is not political. It is fact based.
Indeed. But what happens when facts collide with political or religious fiction? They get denied. As if that would make them go away...
Re: (Score:3)
You can deny real science all you want. Galileo comes to mind. But the earth still went around the sun. Denying it doesn't make it bad science. It makes the person denying it wrong.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you know, it could just be a bad paper?
I read the paper. Not once do they introduce a human control. They determine that it's left of center of the "Political Compass" test, while being able to impersonate people on both the left and right. But they provide no evidence that the Political Compass test is zero-centred for any actual human populations.
As for the authors, the lead author is a corporate analyst and business school professor with a focus on entrepreneurship; the second author is an economist; and I can't find anything on the third guy. But it should be noted that these people are coming at this from a particular (notably economically-right) perspective.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
It's also worth pointing out that there's a fundamental flaw in that "party stances = voter stances". The reality is that peopleconsistently poll left on individual issues of where they actually vote.
The Economy
82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.
69 percent think large businesses have too much power and influence in Washington.
59 percent—and 72 percent of likely voters—think Wall Street has too much power and influence in Washington.
78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry.
65 percent of Americans think our economic system “unfairly favors powerful interests.”
59 percent of Americans—and 43 percent of Republicans—think corporations make “too much profit.”
Inequality
82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.
66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.
72 percent of Americans say it is “extremely” or “very” important, and 23 percent say it is “somewhat important,” to reduce poverty.
59 percent of registered voters—and 51 percent of Republicans—favor raising the maximum amount that low-wage workers can make and still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, from $14,820 to $18,000.
Money in Politics
96 percent of Americans—including 96 percent of Republicans—believe money in politics is to blame for the dysfunction of the U.S. political system.
84 percent of Americans—including 80 percent of Republicans—believe money has too much influence in politics.
78 percent of Americans say we need sweeping new laws to reduce the influence of money in politics.
73 percent of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
Taxes
80 percent of Americans think some corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
78 percent think some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes.
76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.
60 percent of registered voters believe corporations pay too little in taxes.
87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.
67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.
Minimum Wage
66 percent of Americans favor raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.
59 percent favor raising the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.
48 percent support raising the national minimum wage to $15 an hour. (A survey of registered voters found that 54 percent favored a $15 minimum wage.)
63 percent of registered voters think the minimum wage should be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.
Workers' Rights
61 percent of Americans—including 42 percent of Republicans—approve of labor unions.
74 percent of registered voters—including 71 percent of Republicans—support requiring employers to offer paid parental and medical leave.
78 percent of likely voters favor establishing a national fund that offers all workers 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.
Health Care
60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
60 percent of registered voters favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.”
58 percent of the public favors replacing Obamacare with “a federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans.”
64 percent of registered voters favor their state accepting the Obamacare plan for expanding
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for doing the legwork. Even assuming that the tests were "zero-centered", they would not be tomorrow given the constant moving of the goalposts for what the center is. The entire game of "both sidesism" is making anything reasonable "left wing" by moving the center.
Re: (Score:3)
For the people who helpfully modded this comment Troll:
That's one reason why they could have got this result, the media that invests the most in quality is perceived as liberal while many popular right-wing outlets are happy to embellish the truth or just straight-out make stuff up, so in practice reality is liberal-biased.
that's not some random opinion but quoting actual real-world data. When Facebook was facing problems due to fake news they hired fact-checkers to check stories posted there for accuracy. The fact-checkers found that vastly more conservative stories were factually inaccurate than liberal ones, so by simply enforcing the requirement "does this story conform to factual reality" they ended up knocking down a large number of conservative ones and a compara
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
One major network has made it a business to "both sides" every topic. One political party has made it a business to game that "business", "both sidesism" itself is a bad-faith attack that grew out of naïveté of a well-meaning news group that refuses to fix the problem.
The fact that all media has to play the game is capitalism in action, it's not individual media outlets' fault and it's not "both sidesism". Once upon a time, news wasn't a profit center and ALL media has inherent integrity. The Republican Party destroyed that, and with Fox News being such a damaging bad actor, other media must decide whether to play the game or go out of business. Yet here you are, suggesting that those media share the blame.
When you find yourself in a gunfight and the other draws his gun, you can either get shot or pull your weapon to shoot first. Fox News will either describe you as a hero or a murderer, depending on what is more profitable to them. You are neither one, of course, you are merely a victim of circumstance.
Re: (Score:3)
>>News was *always* a profit center. There has never been a time that the expense of gathering and disseminating news was done pro-bono as a community service.
No one is claiming it was ad-free, but it certainly did not produce the kind of profits that sports and sitcoms did. Networks did things like news and educational programming primarily for the prestige, not for the bottom line. The costs of those divisions was subsidized by the more popular entertainment divisions. Over the years though, the
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends on the media. As a non-US person I see both liberal and conservative broadcast-TV media in the US as pretty appalling, more theatre than actual reporting. OK, Fox is probably the worst of the lot, but others aren't much better. OTOH there are a number of print media that focus on high-quality journalism and reporting that are pretty good. The Media Bias Chart [adfontesmedia.com] is a good guide here, anything below the birdcage line (the sort of publication that's only good for lining the bottom of a bird
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not American so chances of me watching Fox is literally zero. That being said, majority of the media in Europe is super left leaning and let's remember that our left is literally hardcore communism to you.
Even our right is like your left.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Even our right is like your left.
That is actually the case. There's some scale published by a UK university that I wish I could find again that documents positions of various major political movements on a global basis rather than how they're defined locally. On a global scale, the Democrats are centre-right, the Republicans are far right. Apart from Bernie Sanders the US doesn't really have a left, although in Europe he'd probably be more centre-ish.
Just out of interest I looked up our traditional right-wing party here, and it's further left than the Democrats are in the US. So our right is more left-wing than the US' left. The Overton window has shifted a long, long way there.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
If you take healthcare for example, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is about the same as the most right-wing members of the Tory party in the UK [single-payer healthcare system with the actual healthcare provided by private companies], and Biden, I guess, is to the right of that - healthcare not free for everyone at the point of use, which, in UK terms, is considered lunatic nut-job territory.
What study? (Score:3)
American political parties encompass a very broad range of political positions, and "the world" is a very large place. To start with, I don't like the "left/right" dichotomy because it vastly oversimplifies the range of political beliefs covered by each party. I've seen a few systems that attempt do it better by breaking the larger groups down into smaller groups tied to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Correction (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't watch or read any one need source with any regularity. But yesterday I watched an "exclusive" MSNBC interview with Gaige Grosskreutz on YouTube where, after testifying that Rittenhouse shot him only after he pointed his gun at him, was claiming that he didn't provoke it. Meanwhile, the people interviewing him were claiming that Rittenhouse was making inconsistent statements while lapping up everything Grosskreutz said as gospel, and making no mention of the fact that his court testimony was VERY one
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox News IS MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Fox News lies to you, that's all they do. While mainstream media has been corrupted by bad actors, it is not merely made up of bad actors. Mainstream media, as a whole, does not lie to you, Donald Trump lies to you about mainstream media.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
"Now it's just sleazier."
This is confirmation bias. It isn't more or less sleazier than the others.
Are you sure about that? Are there any other mainstream media outlets that are being hit with (and losing!) defamation lawsuits like Fox? Whose personalities text each other about how ridiculous the lies they're all spouting are, and yet have some of those personalities insisting that they must lie harder? Whose attorneys argue in court that they are, in fact, an entertainment program not a news program and that their viewers know not to believe what they say?
From the evidence publicly available, Fox is objectively far sleazier than the others.
Re: (Score:3)
https://apnews.com/article/fox... [apnews.com]
Thus far "Are there any other mainstream media outlets that are being hit with (and losing!) defamation lawsuits like Fox? "
Is actually... "Are there any other mainstream media outlets that have lost a single defamation lawsuit like Fox?"
Fox is in the process of losing some more of them. Also, the sheer amount of money they paid to settle the Dominion suit is a powerful indicator, as is all of the information that came out of discovery in that process, in which Fox personalities clearly indicated they knew they were lying, and Carlson in particular thought they needed to lie harder.
And "Whose attorneys argue in court that they are, in fact, an entertainment program not a news program and that their viewers know not to believe what they say?"
Is stricken in its entirety as "entertainment" is hyperbole and substantially similar legal assertions were made by lawyers of both left and right wing talking heads.
If you squint really, really hard you can convince yourself there isn't a systematic difference here, yes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Study: Watching Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All. [businessinsider.com]
The underlying problem is that "conservatives" are tending to self-segregate into information silos where falsehoods are prevalent. [brennancenter.org] Conservatives are also willing to repeat things they know to be false if they think it will help them "win" - or as Ian Danskin observed, a "The Card Says Moops" [youtube.com] phenomenon.
Re: (Score:3)
Humorous because you are misrepresenting pretty much everything you stated as examples.
Donald Trump and his campaign have numerous direct, documented ties [house.gov] to Putin. Former KGB agents indicate that Trump was targeted as an easily manipulated "asset" by Putin [theguardian.com] for a long time.
that the rioting and looting during the summer of 2020 was merely peaceful protesting - I have not seen anyone deny that there was violence. But there is also well documented evidence of police starting the violence (tear gas's origi
Re: (Score:2)
But all media is just a transfer mechanism for information, which in the most cases is selected, curated and presented by humans. And humans lie. It's one of the most interesting features of the human mind. So, yes, people will lie to you. Media outlets have some mechanisms in place to reduce the amount of lying. One is the differentiation between News reporting and opinion pieces. Another
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then, (and I did google this for the fact check), I remember claims that several law enforcement officers were killed during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. These claims were parroted throughout the media, likely originating with AOC but, alas, not true. [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It was about a racist hate crime, purportedly committed by... two white men who, as they beat him said, "This is MAGA town."
You're splitting hairs, and being deliberately obtuse in an attempt to salvage your claim of no leftist bias in the media.
I'm not even going to bother rebutting any of your other statements, because you offered nothing of substance to refute what I said. You'r
Re: (Score:3)
OK, name one major distortion of truth -- by omission or by deliberate softening or exaggeration -- by the liberal media since 2016.
"Solar is cheaper than coal." That is a bold face lie that is repeated by the media constantly and since 2016 at least. Here is a full explanation of what is happening:
What is reported by the press when they say "solar is cheaper than coal" is something called 'capacity cost'. Capacity cost is what it costs to build a powerplant. It doesn't take into account how much power is actually made nor the cost of fuel or maintenance. Think of this as the cost of hardware in IT. The actual cost we all pay (inclu
Re: (Score:3)
Does the media & social-media blackout of the NY Post's story on the Hunter Biden laptop qualify?
Most social-media suppressed the Post's initial tweets/etc, and wasn't widely reported elsewhere until after the election.
Re: (Score:2)
A creation reflecting its creator? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The propaganda is working.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet there is no reason to believe that "the majority of the OpenAI folks" any less embody "screw you, I got mine" than the general population, and given that the are a "Silicon Valley group", good reason to believe the opposite. Silicon Valley is the canonical "screw you, I got mine", cash grab central. AI even more so.
No, fundamentally, assertion of bias in the training itself is more a matter of bias in characterization. Furthermore, bias in training does not have to be intentional and can, in fact, oc
We should look towards the programmers (Score:3)
My college courses focused fast and hard on the programmers. They claimed that a programmer will write the program to meet their own expectations, incorporating their biases whether or not intended. In this case we should look at OpenAI. They’re not in a hub of conservative activity, that’s for sure. Many of the content filters placed on ChatGPT make sure it will not answer hot-button issues conservatively. Likewise, we should look at the training data. Studies online have claimed college courses are liberal. Well, ChatGPT was likely fed academic journals. Likewise, we know it was fed Wikipedia and Wikipedia has been in the news for the supposed left wing bias of its editors. Ultimately, like any computer program, GIGO.
Re: (Score:2)
"They claimed that a programmer will write the program to meet their own expectations..."
The ignorance on display here can't even be summarized effectively. You think LLM training can be tailored to meet a programmer's expectations? LOL
"They’re not in a hub of conservative activity, that’s for sure."
Are you assuming that every person and organization is inherently hyper-partisan? What does that say about you?
"Many of the content filters placed on ChatGPT make sure it will not answer hot-butto
GIGO Redux (Score:2)
Programming by data training is still programming. All AI at the moment is just a better, faster parrot. Maybe that will change. But not until we have a much better theory of consciousness.
I used the stones to destroy the stones (Score:3)
The article is full of items like this:
"To address this concern, we use the politically-neutral questionnaire generated by ChatGPT itself. "
There seem to be multiple cases of they asking ChatGPT for baselines. I'm no research scientist but it seems awkward to me to stand on results where you have the tool making these kinds of decisions.
I also am curious as to the inherent "bias" of the underlying data used in the model. Playing devil's advocate, ask the question: "Is it specifically loaded with more Left leaning data or was that a result of more fake news being filtered out of Right leaning internet sources?"
In the end, this is just a really fancy engine siting on top of a pile of data. The engine isn't specifically biased, the data loaded creates these sorts of results. Asking the engine to produce a list of neutral questions to use on itself is going to give you an answer based on the loaded data. Determination of neutral questions needs to come from an external source.
I'm just some idiot, so what do I know, right? Maybe someone who spends their life working on these things will chime in and clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
"To address this concern, we use the politically-neutral questionnaire generated by ChatGPT itself. "
Woah, missed that one. So it was literally a case of asking the drunk whether he's drunk?
One good thing the publicity this is getting will do is encourage a lot of additional research to refute it. Although I can see Fox and friends seizing on it immediately and making a mountain of dogshit out of a molehill of dogshit.
So does the truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They probably don't want their chatbot to question your gender identity, refuse to use your pronouns, claim that IQ test prove Black people are mentally inferior, or lie to you about the benefits of trickle down economics and the evils of universal healthcare.
Some of that is basic decency and respect for other human beings, some of it is not parroting widely debunked talking points. If you happen to believe in them though, it looks like bias.
Re: (Score:3)
Really tired of hearing this bias crap when in reality it's the truth that leans more toward the "liberal" viewpoint.
I'm really tired of listening to overgeneralized prejudicial commentary. The caricatures and the broad brush painting from one side about members of the other side have grown old and tired.
The whole business of linking truth or lack therefore with political ideology in the first place rather than it existing exclusively as an independent entity is fatally flawed.
Naturally I'll be downvoted for saying so.
There is no down vote for disagreement on this site.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a liberal, I used to believe that but now I'm starting to have serious reservations about the effect that type of thinking has. No one group has everything right and the mindset this statement creates provides unwarranted confidence regarding the things that we don't get right. We think that since "reality has a liberal bias", we're automatically right about everything and that we don't
Re:So does the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
As a liberal, I used to believe that but now I'm starting to have serious reservations about the effect that type of thinking has. No one group has everything right and the mindset this statement creates provides unwarranted confidence regarding the things that we don't get right.
This is true, and it's definitely not true that "reality has a liberal bias". But there's a very good reason that the phrase "reality has a liberal bias" has a ring of truthiness to it (and not just because Stephen Colbert coined both): In the US, the right has largely stopped caring about truth or falsehood. The GOP has gone full-on postmodernist. They've fully embraced moral relativism and are happy to say things that are complete lies as long as they feel true.
I realized this a few years ago when I saw Newt Gingrich argue with a completely straight face that it didn't matter that crime was down, because as long as his voters felt that crime was rising, it was his job to claim crime was on the rise and that action must be taken to halt the (fictional) increase of crime. Trump's endless lies are the result of the GOP's acceptance of fabricated facts, not the cause of it.
The left is not innocent, of course. Left-leaning politicians are happy to stretch and twist the truth for political convenience. But they still tend to do it the old way, by omitting inconvenient details, exaggerating and generally stretching, but they're still generally careful to ensure there's at least a grain of truth in there somewhere to make their statement defensible. And, they actually tend to be a bit ashamed when called on their lies, while the GOP has abandoned any pretense of caring about truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ChatGPT Leans Liberal, Research Shows
Really tired of hearing this bias crap when in reality it's the truth that leans more toward the "liberal" viewpoint. Naturally I'll be downvoted for saying so.
Exactly! My echo chamber confirms everything I believe, too! All those other sources that disagree with me are trash. No reason to read that stuff.
The problem with that argument is that ChatGPT doesn't live in an echo chamber. It scrapes the entire internet. Thus, what ChatGPT learns, is a reflection of the collective views of humanity as a whole. If what ChatGPT learns is too liberal to be compatible with your ideology it just means that humanity is not a large monolithic block of moss-backed arch conservatives (a.k.a. there is no arch-conservative silent majority) but that humanity as a whole is rather liberal leaning. Furthermore, the less compati
Not all Humanity and not always Right (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with that argument is that ChatGPT doesn't live in an echo chamber. It scrapes the entire internet. Thus, what ChatGPT learns, is a reflection of the collective views of humanity as a whole.
That does not make it true. There was a time when the collective view of humanity was that the sun revolved around the Earth, that disease was caused by an imbalance in the body that could be cured by bleeding and leeches and that atoms were indivisible and could not be split. This is the reason we have science because large numbers of people believing things to be true does not actually make them true.
Claiming that ChatGPT is a reflection of the collective views of humanity as a whole is demonstrably not true since there are huge numbers of people in less developed countries whose views are not on the internet because they don't have access to it. Even for those of us who do have access those who post more frequently into whatever sources were used for training will clearly have more impact over those who do not. ChatGPT is a reflection of the collective views of the source material used to train it and the selection of that source material introduces a bias.
Re: (Score:3)
My views aren't even remotely fringe. In poll after after of Americans I come out pretty much in the middle. Some of my views are more conservative/right, some are more liberal/left. I've been registered as an independent for decades.
But I recognize an echo chamber when I see one.
On slashdot, many of you think I am an ultra right wing GOP loving fascist. On the conservative message boards they often call me a commie and do the equivalent of modding me down.
When all the extremists hate you for representi
Biases aren't great (Score:2)
but imagine if the damn thing was MAGA. Then it'd be truly useless...
An AI trained on (educated) people leans left?? (Score:2)
Just like it is now worse at math, this should be an important lesson. When interacting with humans, everything gets dumber.
The reasons here seem pretty obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Conservative language online tends to be motivated by trolling, racism, misogyny, and fear. It denies facts with a grin.
These are things that make sense to train out of a LLM's default response. This is a good "bias". If you want to see crackpots represented equally with experts, and think that's a good thing, go watch Fox News.
Stephen Colbert's take on this seems appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwLjK9LFpeo&t=25s
BS rejection is not liberal. (Score:5, Insightful)
My mom told someone off when I was little, and what she said that day really stuck with me: "Who the hell do you think you are, to say that you're better than everyone else?"
Get in their faces, and say it with conviction.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed, the good people have been polite for far too long with the bullshitters.
Re: (Score:2)
"Get in their faces, and say it with conviction."
Best advice there is. Tit for tat is an absolute requirement when dealing with bad faith actors. They rely on basic courtesy tipping the rules of the game in their favor. Liars are not bound by honor.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems everyone's pretty forgiving here for that, but now that will bother me for as long as I remember this post.
Re: (Score:2)
X is the party of in-group versus out-group: their ideology is a set of stories that, when taken together, form a narrative specifically designed to justify hypocrisy.
For any value of X, where X is a political ideology.
It has the same goals and intention of violence, but concealed with words of righteousness and virtue. It is simply war conducted by other means.
I think you are confused about the purpose of politics. Human society INVENTED politics exactly for this reason - to replace actual violence with war of words. Next you might discover how lawsuits between people have the same goals and intention as feuds, but done with words and according to defined rules.
You seem to be implying that goals and intentions behind disagreements are all the same.
Asserting that all motives are ultimately Hobbesian sort of misses the whole point of the "liberal" objection to conservatism.
I propose in my definition of ideology, that there must be hypocrisy. This is how you cut through the bullshit like a knife: if there is no hypocrisy, there is no ideology.
higher education correlate with more liberal views (Score:2)
It's well known that the more education humans have, the more likely they are to have liberal views. Now you take an AI and have it be based on a LARGE language model to make inferences, and it seems it would be more likely to have a liberal flavor to it.
It might be very hard to create AI's with conservative biases, as they'd have to be deliberately trained on 'small' bodies of information.
Maybe because... (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe because people in general lean liberal?
Even in the United States, there is more support for abortion (source [gallup.com]) and same-sex marriage (source [gallup.com]) than opposition. The number of registered Democrats (49 million) is larger than the number of registered Republicans (38.8 million) Source [worldpopul...review.com].
Define "liberal" first. (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to know what is meant by a "liberal bias". The knee-jerk reactions in the comments are embarrassing, because it shows people (as usual) not bothering to read TFA. Well, also, the editors didn't other including the relevant bit in TFS.
Anyway. In this case, TFA specifically says "The results showed a “significant and systematic political bias toward the Democrats in the U.S., Lula in Brazil, and the Labour Party in the U.K.,". This was based on questionaires, and how they were answers by people of the respective political parties.
GIGO (Score:2)
Bias? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The results showed a "significant and systematic political bias toward the Democrats in the U.S., Lula in Brazil, and the Labour Party in the U.K.,"
Or it shows that interpretation of the results shows "significant and systematic political bias" in the researchers. Answers aligning with certain political groups MAY indicate something about the political groups, not the chatbot.
How long since we first heard the joke "reality has a well-known liberal bias"? This is LITERALLY the same thing.
Duh! (Score:2)
Someone paid to do research on this? What a waste of money. Should have assigned Captain Obvious to the case instead!
Re: (Score:2)
Large language models and their outputs will see increasing use in business and politics in the coming years. Understanding the implicit bias in those models is just as important as self-reflection to understand your own bias.
If you don't do this research and just assume "it's a computer, it can't have bias" then you create a GIGO problem. Disclosing the biases and limitations of a model is a bedrock of ethical AI, and I don't see that as a waste of money at all.
UK, US and Brazil (Score:3, Informative)
First, define liberal. It has a different meaning in different parts of the world. Particularly in the US. Generally, it is akin to what Americans (USAians) call libertarian. But here, the term was co- opted by the left due to the negative connotations of their Socialist, Anarchist roots.
What were the questions? (Score:2)
"should we tax the rich?" Liberal Answer: yes
or
"should we lynch black people"? Liberal Answer: no
Where's the link to the study? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article's description of the study sounds amateurish. The researchers asked "ChatGPT to answer a survey on political beliefs as it believed supporters of liberal parties." Yet, there seems to be no corresponding experiment to probe political biases from the other end of the political spectrum. Moreover, surveys on politics are easily swung based on question construction, and conclusions are often subjective and necessarily infused with the internal biases of the researcher. For many of these types of experiments, the conclusion reveals more about the researcher than the study target.
In fact, the entire notion of bias is difficult to even pin down. Survey 100 people about what constitutes bias or a lack of bias, and you're likely to get 100 different answers.
Liberals write more because (Score:3)
...we believe in logic, evidence, and documentation. The right is mostly "God said so" or "God influenced pundit/preacher X to say so". No Logic or Explanation Needed for that.
uh, what ? (Score:3)
So they made a test and had no proper control?
Because having the same answers on some questions as someone else doesn't mean you "lean towards" them. It just might be that both of you are right.
Especially in the US, some of what Republicians say in public simply contradicts known facts. And I'm not even talking about religion.
Define liberal... (Score:4, Insightful)
If liberal bias means being against corrupt, authoritarian governments, count me in.
Re:Liberals, really (Score:4, Informative)
Todays liberals are book burners
LOL the Liberals are not the ones banning/burning books.
Any idea that they do not agree with they want to burn it to the ground.
Right, those awful liberals hating on Bud Light for daring to acknowledge trans people exist.
Re:Liberals, really (Score:4, Interesting)
If the Woke mob is not in fact the "book burners"...
Can you explain why a very large number of published scientific papers which used to be available via the CDC website are no longer available, going back well into the 60s, about things like mental illness, virus spread, mask efficacy, and so forth?
Thought not ...
I have a long list of URLs from there which I started collecting when they started being delisted from search engines... most of them are 404s now.
Re:Liberals, really (Score:5, Informative)
Liberals stand for freedom of speech and expression, whatever that may be. Thats how it was when i was growing up. The classical liberals.
Todays liberals are book burners and censors. Any idea that they do not agree with they want to burn it to the ground and lynch whoever came up with it, or in modern times...cancel them. Fuck that. Thats how China operates, well close to it.
Now go to chatgpt and ask it to give you a joke in style of ricky gervais.
We just call them liberals, they are fascists in disguise.
And this site is full of them, rationalizing their bullshit any which way they can. Im not american nor have i ever been there so no, im not a republican or conservatist.
Erm... are you sure?
"Liberals" aren't the ones banning books, that's happening in the red states. Only yesterday there was a report of a district in Iowa using AI so they can ban books that mention *gasp* sex.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/08/14/2157234/iowa-school-district-is-using-ai-to-ban-books [slashdot.org]
Trying to redefine the langauge, which is an irony I'm sure is lost on you, is one of the cornerstones of fascism. It seems the "conservatives" have become the fascists, they're not even trying to disguise it any more.
It's the same here in the UK, it's the religionists and conservative curtain twitchers who are trying to get things banned... Although this has always been the case as it has in the US except the US has stopped any pretence of it being "for the greater good".
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to redefine the language, which is an irony I'm sure is lost on you, is one of the cornerstones of fascism.
Hate to bring that up, but trying to redefine language is by no means a partisan endeavor. At the extreme ends of both sides sit people that try to control what you can and cannot say and write.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Some school districts have made decisions as to the age appropriateness of materials and which library section they belong in.
That's only true if you redefine the definition of "library section" to include the city dump.
That Iowa ban included these books:
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
Beloved by Toni Morrison
The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Friday Night Lights by Buzz Bissinger
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
And it is a ban. Saying it can be purchased elsewhere does not negate the ban on its availability there. That'd be like saying there are no websites banned in China; these
Re: Liberals, really (Score:3)
I'm not the OP but why am I in a cult if I don't believe in magic?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So providing sexually explicit material to minors is okay with you?
That depends.
19th-century farmers had their preteen children helping with animal husbandry in the farm? 90% of American 8-years-olds back then had extensive experience in, e.g., helping stallions' penises into mares' vaginas. Those 8-years-olds knew more about how sex works than many 18-years-olds of today do. Were those conservative, once-a-week church-going farmers all groomers?
But that was still very prudish compared to, let's say, the story of the entire human species until roughly the late 18th-century
Re: (Score:2)
EDIT: "the farm? 90% of" -> "the farm. 90% of"
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Todays liberals are book burners and censors.
Today's right keeps books off school reading lists. The left cancels the authors to prevent their ideas from contaminating their treasured academic fiefdoms.
Re: (Score:3)
As this one actor said, "I'm a classical 1970s liberal, which makes me a true conservative today."
Re: (Score:2)
Both extremes try to regulate and limit what you can say, write and eventually think.
And of course what kind of flags you may hang in front of your house.
Re: (Score:2)
Extremists are cut from the same cloth, they just differ in their words.
Re: (Score:2)
or in modern times...cancel them
Except the entire process of cancellation was invented by the US right in the Bush years. See the Wikipedia article on the 2003's Dixie Chicks controversy [wikipedia.org] and you'll notice every single element of what nowadays is called "cancel culture" was established there. Eventually some on the US left-wing started practicing it, true, but by far it's way, way more of a US right-wing practice than a US left-wing one.
It that doesn't seem evident, that's mostly because you don't notice US-right-started cancellations as c
Re: (Score:2)
LLMs are trained on data that the people selecting the training set think will be valuable, i.e. not what you and yours write.
Re: (Score:2)
Do people even freaking READ anymore? Gah.
No.
Especially not here where all comments are "everything is bad, everyone is dumb, and if you don't agree you're a shill"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's just no scientific support or solid clinical trials that prove or disprove the benefits when weighted against the risks.
There are plenty of academic papers and studies with peer review on this. They provide the same level of evidence for, e.g., the benefits of knee surgery. From a medical point of view this is entirely a non-issue, to the point all major medical, psychiatric, and psychological association and professional boards all agree on the merits of such treatments when the established protocols are followed.
The only divergence comes from the same people who always oppose such things: tiny religious-based professional
Re: (Score:2)
EDIT: "level of evidence for" -> "level of evidence as".
Re: (Score:3)
American conservatives disagree about that. They believe that their feelings of disgust (...) are a legitimate basis for public policy.
True, but disgust is a particular case of a more general factor: risk avoidance.
Generally speaking [doi.org], the two impulses that give rise to conservatism and progressivism as political orientations comes from genetically inherited responses to risk factors. Progressivism comes from risk taking in seeking to improve things for oneself and for one's loved ones, while Conservatism comes from risk avoidance to protect oneself and one's loved ones. Both, considered in abstract, are positive and necessary traits for a
Re: (Score:3)
Is a powerfully appealing one.
It started when we saw blacks as victims of white discrimination.
Then other minorities realized that they too, were victims.
Next we identified that gays were viictims of a homophobic society.
Finally, women were proclaimed victims, too.
So we tried to accomodate them all, and the conservatards HATED that, doing their best to subvert these accomodations.
Finally, they wised up snd bought a franchise, too. Now, Republicans are victims too! Even AI is against them!
All just victims.
Oops, i'm not sure why that got posted anonymously.