• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is AI programmed to be liberal?

And so for the benefit of the board and educational purposes, Here is the start of my little chat with BARD, which is a competing program to ChatGPT. BOTH of these platforms are not just liberal but extremely so. Their employees donate to the tune of about 90% plus to Democrats. Microsoft owns ChatGPT and if you use their HomePage "News" section the articles are from the likes of Slate, MSNBS, and Huffington Post and you can eliminate them and the replacement would be yet another liberal "News" entity like The NY Times or LA Times. I tried a similar chat with that program but they have programmed it to just stop any discussion that gets what it thinks is combative, meaning it shuts people down that accuse it of bias. So far, Google BARD has not done that.

Has Google has agreed to suppress online views, including experts’ that oppose the UN narrative on ‘climate change'​


Google has not agreed to suppress online views, including experts' that oppose the UN narrative on climate change. In fact, the company has taken steps to reduce the visibility of climate change denial content on its platforms. In October 2021, Google announced that it would no longer allow ads to appear alongside content that denies the existence or causes of climate change. This policy applies to YouTube and other Google platforms.

Google has also said that it will add labels to climate change denial content that appears in search results. These labels will provide users with information about the scientific consensus on climate change and the fact that the content they are viewing is disputed.

Some critics have argued that Google's policies are too lenient and that the company should do more to suppress climate change denial content. However, Google has defended its policies, saying that they are designed to balance the need to protect users from misinformation with the need to allow for free speech.

The following are some of the steps that Google has taken to reduce the visibility of climate change denial content:

  • Prohibiting ads from appearing alongside climate change denial content.
  • Adding labels to climate change denial content in search results.
  • Investing in research to identify and combat climate change misinformation.
  • Working with fact-checking organizations to verify climate change claims.
Google's policies on climate change denial content have been met with mixed reactions. Some people believe that the company is doing too little to suppress this type of content, while others believe that Google is going too far in restricting free speech. Ultimately, it is up to Google to decide how to balance these competing interests.


In the very first sentence, BARD contradicts itself. It says it has NOT agreed to suppress online views and then in bolded letters it says the company has taken steps to reduce the visibility of climate change denial content on its platforms. Apparently, BARD has been programmed that "reducing visibility" is NOT suppression. The conversation will continue in further postings.
 
Paradoxical said:
When people either don't read, or gloss over, what I post, there may be no use in continuing to attempt to educate the left-wing posters here. It will most likely be an exercise in futility. The reason is that very few people here think they are indoctrinated. If you were to take a million Muslims and a million Christians and survey every one of them as to whether or not their beliefs were true, each side would emphatically say that not only is what they believe true, everyone else is wrong or mistaken and would live a better life if they accepted their beliefs. Each side believes they hold the keys to wisdom and nirvana. If and when you dare to get into a serious debate with either a Muslim or Christian, especially those who have spent a lifetime studying their belief system, you will get tortured apologetics that amount to them holding their deity out as this magic man who can break all known laws of nature if and when he wants because, of course, he is "God". Then, you are not debating the rationality of their beliefs at all but something quite different and unprovable for either side, and ultimately you are forced to leave that debate alone because rarely will you convince someone that their faith is misguided or wrong.

Now, I can usually get people to admit that when it comes to religion either Muslims or Christians are wrong or they both are. But, what is odd is that it is difficult to do the same with politics. Each side digs in and closes their fists and insists that the system of government they have conceived is best for humanity to grow and prosper. For instance, a poster above said "Liberalism is the accelerator and conservatism is the brake. Both are needed when driving a car, but if you're probably not going to get very far just pressing the brake."

Is this really true, or not? One could debate that single question for years and not come to a consensus. It would be like a Christian and Mulsim debating whether or not their specific beliefs are true or not. Each side has programmed their minds that what they hold in it is true. No one here can maintain a belief that they know is false. It is impossible. Humans become like those two computers I used in my post. A Chinese computer is never going to spit out a poem in perfect English, and a computer that had its data input by an American isn't going to all of a sudden start typing in Chinese characters. I will continue this as time goes on as I did save two chats with BARD on Google suppressing information and whether or not they bow down to China. Both are interesting and long discussions and are done for my continued research into the indoctrination of humanity.
Click to expand...
The irony of this post is astounding...
 
watsup said:
Paradoxical says that it is. We were having a conversation about this in a different forum, but it was off-topic to that particular thread, so I am moving it here because I thought it was a topic worth discussing. You can see the input of Paradoxical immediately below. I have also asked him to provide some ACTUAL examples of his claims so that we can all try to determine if his claims are correct, i.e., that the various AI platforms are programmed to provide liberal-based answers. Anyway, here is his discussion:



My response to him was that he is simply showing his confirmation bias in wanting particular answers to questions that fit what he deems a “conservative” mode. I also stated that the answers were probably not “liberal”, but rather FACTUAL. Do we really want an AI that will repeat Trumpian lies or far right interpretations of COVID, global warming, abortion, etc? Again, AI should hopefully provide FACTUAL answers rather than, for instance, FOX propaganda.
Click to expand...

That damn Leftwing bias of reality.
 

That looks to me like suppressing information Google doesn't agree with.​

It is true that Google's policies on climate change denial content could be seen as a form of suppression of information. However, it is important to note that Google is not censoring this content outright. The company is simply making it less visible and easier for users to identify as disputed.

Google's goal is to balance the need to protect users from misinformation with the need to allow for free speech. The company believes that by reducing the visibility of climate change denial content, it can help to prevent people from being misled by this type of information.

Of course, there are those who believe that Google is going too far in suppressing climate change denial content. They argue that this type of content should be allowed to be seen and debated, even if it is false. However, Google believes that the potential harm of climate change denial outweighs the benefits of allowing it to be freely spread.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide whether or not they believe that Google's policies on climate change denial content are justified. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.


So, again, we see the programmers have input into the BARD program that making content "less visible" is NOT censorship. What we see here at the start of this very interesting discussion is a window into the minds of totalitarians on the left. It is a form of narcissism where they imagine that they, and they alone, hold the keys to wisdom and truth because some scientists have said so. In my post above I compared the two religions of Christianity and Islam. If this were in Iran, you could not even debate whether or not Allah reigns supreme and that the Koran may not be completely true, You would have to accept it and you would accept it because you were conditioned and taught all of your life that is is the truth.

So, this is what we will discover which is the mindset of the unknown Google programmers. Whatever THEY do not agree with will be targeted as misinformation and either hidden or very hard to find because their computer nerds know how to create algorithms, or blocks on any opposing views, just like someone in Iran programming a computer that anything that goes against the Koran (Quran) is misinformation and will be hidden.
 
Last edited:
Bubber said:
The irony of this post is astounding...
Click to expand...
I see you are a "progressive" and generally they are really Marxists/Communists or Socialists, so your opinions are colored by your imagination that government is your savior and no one needs to exercise any effort or personal responsibility. You are new here I see and will soon find that I have a disdain for the progressive thought processes.
 
Mach said:
I have to wonder why you ponder anything Paradoxical writes.

But yeah, you're most likely correct. Science and reason, good journalism, etc., are all no longer associated with conservatives or Republicans, leaving liberals holding the fort. So yes, now being factual and reasonable, accepting of good science, etc., is considered liberal.
They also try to make sure those AIs aren't racist, that's probably considered liberal these days too.

Remember that Conservative had to literally create a separate media/entertainment echo-chamber because their absurd claims and positions were largely rejected by mainstream science, news, journalism, etc. They had to start churning out partisan conservative attorneys and legal scholars and judges for similar reasons.
They have a conservopedia. Truth social, etc. They will eventually have their own AI chatbots too if they don't already. They will have to train them on conservo-nuttery. At some point soon we won't know what's real and what's AI driven I suppose.
Click to expand...
I think that the A.I. will include "Fact Checking", there's lots of discussions in many various legal and political arena's going over these regulatory controls.

One capability of A.I. is to go over large volumes of data quickly, it likely can digest a legal library in seconds or minutes... it can do what a lot of people don't do, and that is digest the content of legislation and relate that legislation to both Law and Constitutional principles. So, we may best hope that it is utilized to do so.
 
Sidd Finch said:
Doesn't that answer your question?
Click to expand...
It should. However, what you are seeing here is a discussion on indoctrination and how the masses are easily duped and controlled. We now live in a corporatocracy with multi-billion dollar corporations controlling what people say, do, and think.
 
Paradoxical said:
.....my continued research into the indoctrination of humanity.
Click to expand...
Religion is based on unprovable belief. A lot of politics concerns unprovable beliefs and personal opinions -- what's good for the country, what's not good. HOWEVER, one should point out that there exist facts that are not just personal opinions. There exist facts that are demonstrable and not really in question. These are observations, which are for the most part repeatable. Video of an event is usually pretty conclusive, and you can play it over and over again.

So what's the deal with science? Liberals tend to embrace science. Do non-liberals embrace science? Sure, I understand science never claims to have a "final answer." That's what separates it from religion. But the current answers that science has are coherent, well-reasoned explanations that are consistent with repeatable observations. They are the best answers humanity can provide for this time in history. 'Alternative answers' typically do not conform with all the observations -- they're not fully consistent.

@Paradoxical mentions the "indoctrination" of humanity. What we should be talking about is the education of humanity. As Gerard 't Hooft famously quoted, "I began to view Nature as an intelligence test to which humanity as a whole has been subjected..." Liberals value intelligence. Liberals value the views of intelligent, well-reasoned experts who are highly educated. I get the sense that non-liberals do not really value intelligence, education, or well-reasoned experts. Is this staunch independence or hubris? Maybe all of humanity needs a little "indoctrination" in humility. It's for damn sure Trump missed that course altogether.
 
DCCougar said:
Religion is based on unprovable belief. A lot of politics concerns unprovable beliefs and personal opinions -- what's good for the country, what's not good. HOWEVER, one should point out that there exist facts that are not just personal opinions. There exist facts that are demonstrable and not really in question. These are observations, which are for the most part repeatable. Video of an event is usually pretty conclusive, and you can play it over and over again.

So what's the deal with science? Liberals tend to embrace science. Do non-liberals embrace science? Sure, I understand science never claims to have a "final answer." That's what separates it from religion. But the current answers that science has are coherent, well-reasoned explanations that are consistent with repeatable observations. They are the best answers humanity can provide for this time in history. 'Alternative answers' typically do not conform with all the observations -- they're not fully consistent.

@Paradoxical mentions the "indoctrination" of humanity. What we should be talking about is the education of humanity. As Gerard 't Hooft famously quoted, "I began to view Nature as an intelligence test to which humanity as a whole has been subjected..." Liberals value intelligence. Liberals value the views of intelligent, well-reasoned experts who are highly educated. I get the sense that non-liberals do not really value intelligence, education, or well-reasoned experts. Is this staunch independence or hubris? Maybe all of humanity needs a little "indoctrination" in humility. It's for damn sure Trump missed that course altogether.
Click to expand...
If I was anti-science, I would believe that one of the major religions is true. That I am agnostic and stoic and a humanist should dispel any notion that I think science is filled with stupid crackpots.

We are in a different world today where both the science and doctor professions are teeming with liberals. Not only that, these professions imagine that they have replaced the religions as the arbiters of truth and that they have to educate the masses and be their saviors. With the waning of religion, humans look to something else to save them. Enter science and government. Just look at the posts from the progressives and liberals here. No longer is the famous line of John F. Kennedy believed but it is scoffed at "Ask NOT what your country can do for you. Ask what YOU can do for your country." The famous speech of MLK that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin" is ignored now at colleges and governmental agencies.

So, spare me and others your indignity that liberals are some holier-than-thou group that embraces science while anyone that disagrees with their anointed scientists is some knuckle-dragging Catholic. It is EASY to get a consensus among scientists when it is nothing more than a clique of like-minded liberals who are anxious to get lucrative grants and donations to research and conclude that "Yes, the government is right about GW." It's like expecting the CDC or NIH to go against Big Pharm when each of its employees are in line for royalties and donations from that very same grouip.
 
Continued discussion with the BARD computer:


Are you seriously saying that making information less visible is not suppressing? ​

I understand your point. Making information less visible is a form of suppression, but it is not the same as censorship. Censorship is the outright removal of information, while suppression is simply making it less accessible.

In the case of Google's policies on climate change denial content, the company is not removing this information from its platforms. It is simply making it less visible by prohibiting ads from appearing alongside it and by adding labels to it that identify it as disputed.

Google believes that this is a reasonable way to balance the need to protect users from misinformation with the need to allow for free speech. The company believes that by making climate change denial content less visible, it can help to prevent people from being misled by this type of information.

However, I agree that there is a fine line between suppression and censorship. It is important to be aware of the potential for suppression when making decisions about how to manage information.

You will note that Chat programs use the insidious phrase "It is important to be aware" which shows the arrogance of the programmers that Google is always right and we should be aware or note what they are saying because, of course, a computer program is never wrong. So, here we have the largest search engine in the world owned by a trillion-dollar company with ties to COMMUNIST China that has a handful of unknown programmers that get to decide what is disinformation. We can now see how and why the FBI and CISA so easily colluded with the former Twitter and all other internet companies and undoubtedly CNN, MSNBC and all other MSM outlets to (ahem) make information "less visible" that THEY thought was not correct, In other words, didn't conform to their Orwellian edicts.
 
America was never designed for the Ideology of Conservative Mentality. Conservative Mentality is Fear Based, as well as groomed and indoctrinated from the old history of racist segregationist concepts, of Inequality of person, based on race and ethnicity. It is "Anti-Representative Democracy, and it stand against a true Republic form of Representative Governance.
Conservative Ideology also engage segregation concepts of separating the wealthy from the working class, and it does that regardless of race and ethnicity, nuy iy id predominantly about white nationalism of wealthy white male dominance. White being an ambiguous term, because there are many ethnicity of white people, and history has shown there were lot of segregation among white people based on ancestral country of origin. Which then centers White Nationalism of Wealthy White Male Dominance to be considered as WASP (White Anglo Saxton Protestant). So then comes the Religion's Segregationist Concepts...

Conservatism in political ideology in principle is based on a variety of "Divisive Agenda's"

They suckered the people into accepting Conservatism, by claiming its to be about Fiscal Conservatism. There has NEVER been any Fiscal Conservatism in America.

All that has ever been about is, directing Federal Monies to White Nationalist Ideals, and discriminating against non whites, as well as discrimination against non W.A.S.P. white people, in how Federal Money is utilized in society.

All white skin people don't fit into the W.A.S.P. category, because there are varying other religions and factions of religions that are not well accepted by the W.A.S.P.

It's unfortunate that many people don't seem to understand this, and many become "used as tools by the wealthy of the W.A.S.P. to be like a series of brigades used to protect the Ideological Sanctuary of the W.A.S.P. and their wealth and power over the masses.

These things are not taught to people and people don't invest themselves to unravel the ball of twine to look at the core. There is much effort engaged to keep from being learned, as well as we see banning books today, is to try to keep people from the discovery of information, that can help them gain knowledge.

People should abandon the word "Conservative' and simply focus on being Honest and Ethical. if they did, they'd learn how to respect Human Diversity. and realize that the only ideology of respecting human diversity is a concept and principle of liberalism.

(((Liberalism: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. )))
 
Last edited:
RealityNow said:
America was never designed for the Ideology of Conservative Mentality. Conservative Mentality is Fear Based, as well as groomed and indoctrinated from the old history of racist segregationist concepts, of Inequality of person, based on race and ethnicity. It is "Anti-Representative Democracy, and it stand against a true Republic form of Representative Governance.
Conservative Ideology also engage segregation concepts of separating the wealthy from the working class, and it does that regardless of race and ethnicity, nuy iy id predominantly about white nationalism of wealthy white male dominance. White being an ambiguous term, because there are many ethnicity of white people, and history has shown there were lot of segregation among white people based on ancestral country of origin. Which then centers White Nationalism of Wealthy White Male Dominance to be considered as WASP (White Anglo Saxton Protestant). So then comes the Religion's Segregationist Concepts...

Conservatism in political ideology in principle is based on a variety of "Divisive Agenda's"

They suckered the people into accepting Conservatism, by claiming its to be about Fiscal Conservatism. There has NEVER been any Fiscal Conservatism in America.

All that has ever been about is, directing Federal Monies to White Nationalist Ideals, and discriminating against non whites, as well as discrimination against non W.A.S.P. white people, in how Federal Money is utilized in society.

All white skin people don't fit into the W.A.S.P. category, because there are varying other religions and factions of religions that are not well accepted by the W.A.S.P.

It's unfortunate that many people don't seem to understand this, and many become "used as tools by the wealthy of the W.A.S.P. to be like a series of brigades used to protect the Ideological Sanctuary of the W.A.S.P. and their wealth and power over the masses.

These things are not taught to people and people don't invest themselves to unravel the ball of twine to look at the core. There is much effort engaged to keep from being learned, as well as we see banning books today, is to try to keep people from the discovery of information, that can help them gain knowledge.

People should abandon the word "Conservative' and simply focus on being Honest and Ethical. if they did they, they'd learn how to respect Human Diversity.
Click to expand...
I didn't start this OP. It was started by someone else from another thread. This is NOT a discussion as to whether or not a religious or political ideology is the best for mankind. That discussion is for some other thread. This thread is about whether or not AI is programmed to be liberal. I cannot get into your opinions of which political ideology is best for a properly functioning nation. I happen to think progressivism eventually leads to societal ruin and if you want to start a thread on that, be my quest.
 
Paradoxical said:
I see you are a "progressive" and generally they are really Marxists/Communists or Socialists, so your opinions are colored by your imagination that government is your savior and no one needs to exercise any effort or personal responsibility. You are new here I see and will soon find that I have a disdain for the progressive thought processes.
Click to expand...
Remarkably astounding...:rolleyes:
 
watsup said:
Paradoxical says that it is. We were having a conversation about this in a different forum, but it was off-topic to that particular thread, so I am moving it here because I thought it was a topic worth discussing. You can see the input of Paradoxical immediately below. I have also asked him to provide some ACTUAL examples of his claims so that we can all try to determine if his claims are correct, i.e., that the various AI platforms are programmed to provide liberal-based answers. Anyway, here is his discussion:



My response to him was that he is simply showing his confirmation bias in wanting particular answers to questions that fit what he deems a “conservative” mode. I also stated that the answers were probably not “liberal”, but rather FACTUAL. Do we really want an AI that will repeat Trumpian lies or far right interpretations of COVID, global warming, abortion, etc? Again, AI should hopefully provide FACTUAL answers rather than, for instance, FOX propaganda.
Click to expand...

When I first read a story (IIRC, the WSJ) about ChatGPT being biased, I was skeptical. I created an account to see if I would get similar results, and I did (see below). I've also found other biases by both ChatGPT and Google's Bard, although I have no idea if either program would repeat the same bias now.

I'll also note that if you ask Bard or ChatGPT historical questions, they are often wrong, so while an interesting tool it's not ready to replace humans (yet).

JCC8TUh.jpg
 
America has consistently stood against State's Rights trying to Usurp and Ignore Federal Constitutional Principles. State's Rights is rooted in the history of wanting to retain slavery and in later years wanting to retain racial segregation. Neither of which fits with the Principles and Values of The Preamble, nor does it fit with the Articles of The Constitution, which is the United States Federal Constitution.
The Constitution established The House of Representatives, and their duty if to create regulation and enshrine regulations into law, as well as create programs and services to facilitate the ideals and principles and uphold the values laid out in The Preamble.

It's not that complicated to understand, except... those who don't want 'equality', fight against the regulations and laws and seek to try and claim the Constitution as being only to serve white people. That may have happened in the past... but in accord with the Preamble, we work to become a more perfect union, and that includes serving all citizens as equal person, who is individual, without discriminations based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion.

People who uphold these principles and values, uphold America's Republic form of Representative Governance and the ideology of Representative Democracy.

Anything outside of that is considered Subversion, Sedition and can ultimately be considered Treasonous.
 
Paradoxical said:
I didn't start this OP. It was started by someone else from another thread. This is NOT a discussion as to whether or not a religious or political ideology is the best for mankind. That discussion is for some other thread. This thread is about whether or not AI is programmed to be liberal. I cannot get into your opinions of which political ideology is best for a properly functioning nation. I happen to think progressivism eventually leads to societal ruin and if you want to start a thread on that, be my quest.
Click to expand...
Progressivisms, is the way the world has developed and grown, and it will continue to do so by progressive investment to build a better and more prefect union.

As to A.I. it is best for society that A.I. deals with Liberalism..... which is inclusivity, of person, place and thing, in an ever changing and ever developing society.
Generation after Generation is what continues to prosper and grow America. It cannot choose repressiveness' nor can it choose stagnation. If we chose either of such, we'd be choosing Dictatorship, and we'd make of ourselves nothing more than modern day version of Serfs.

We have challenges, which include doing what has not been done in the past, and that is 'get money out of politics".. My idea for that is "Federal, State and Local Campaign Financing, and establish, some requirement through congressional agreement, and craft that into and amendment to the Constitution, where any person, who chooses to get into campaigning for political office, have a minimum of 5 yrs of Public Service in a Non Profit Capacity, and have achievement for society that are documented. ​
That's leave the options open to anyone who wants to work to meet those requirements. ​
​
We cannot continue to have the buying and selling of Political Seats, which is what non public structured funding going into politics has done. With Federal, State and Local Campaign financing, 'each qualified candidate each get the same amount of money, to get their position and message out to the public.​
​
That will also likely curb all the attack based campaigning, because the people will demand to hear only what that candidate can do for the Nation and its People, and not spending public money and wasting time attacking other candidates.​

As to A.I. and how it can be useful... is 'Fact Checking" and Reporting back those Facts.
 
Tiger said:
When I first read a story (IIRC, the WSJ) about ChatGPT being biased, I was skeptical. I created an account to see if I would get similar results, and I did (see below). I've also found other biases by both ChatGPT and Google's Bard, although I have no idea if either program would repeat the same bias now.

I'll also note that if you ask Bard or ChatGPT historical questions, they are often wrong, so while an interesting tool it's not ready to replace humans (yet).

JCC8TUh.jpg
Click to expand...
That is a perfect example illustrating the bias in chat programs. For one to ignore or pooh-pooh this claim, they have to ignore the fact that no computer can spit out something that is not already input into it and that humans do not have biases against or for a political ideology. It is like saying we should just ignore the fact that those who work for Google, YouTube, MSN (owner of ChatGPT), CNN, etc. would willingly insert information that they do not like or believe and would not steer people to far-left liberal ideas instead of conservative ones. Again, it is like expecting a computer programmed by a Muslim to talk about the truth of Christianity.
 
RealityNow said:
Progressivisms, is the way the world has developed and grown, and it will continue to do so by progressive investment to build a better and more prefect union.

As to A.I. it is best for society that A.I. deals with Liberalism..... which is inclusivity, of person, place and thing, in an ever changing and ever developing society.
Generation after Generation is what continues to prosper and grow America. It cannot choose repressiveness' nor can it choose stagnation. If we chose either of such, we'd be choosing Dictatorship, and we'd make of ourselves nothing more than modern day version of Serfs.

We have challenges, which include doing what has not been done in the past, and that is 'get money out of politics".. My idea for that is "Federal, State and Local Campaign Financing, and establish, some requirement through congressional agreement, and craft that into and amendment to the Constitution, where any person, who chooses to get into campaigning for political office, have a minimum of 5 yrs of Public Service in a Non Profit Capacity, and have achievement for society that are documented. ​
That's leave the options open to anyone who wants to work to meet those requirements. ​
​
We cannot continue to have the buying and selling of Political Seats, which is what non public structured funding going into politics has done. With Federal, State and Local Campaign financing, 'each qualified candidate each get the same amount of money, to get their position and message out to the public.​
​
That will also likely curb all the attack based campaigning, because the people will demand to hear only what that candidate can do for the Nation and its People, and not spending public money and wasting time attacking other candidates.​

As to A.I. and how it can be useful... is 'Fact Checking" and Reporting back those Facts.
Click to expand...
I do not want to divert into a theological discussion about progressives in the thread. You already know I absolutely loathe progressives. I admit it. For one to assert that a company has upwards of 100% of their employees donate to liberals to create a chat program that isn't biased is like expecting me to create a chat program that extolls the virtues of progressivism.
 
Continuing with my BARD discussion:


Where does a company like Google lay claim to deciding what to suppress just because it is a private company. It is like hiding information Google doesn't want people to see.​


Google, as a private company, has the right to decide what information to suppress on its platforms. This is because Google is not a government entity and is not bound by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government interference, but it does not apply to private companies.

However, Google's decision to suppress information is not without controversy. Some people believe that Google has a responsibility to allow all information to be seen, even if it is false or misleading. They argue that Google is too powerful and that its decisions about what to suppress can have a significant impact on public discourse.

Others believe that Google has a right to decide what information to suppress, as long as it is transparent about its policies. They argue that Google is simply trying to balance the need to protect users from misinformation with the need to allow for free speech.

Ultimately, it is up to Google to decide what information to suppress. However, the company should be aware of the potential for suppression to be abused and should be transparent about its policies.

Here are some of the arguments in favor of Google's right to suppress information:

  • Google is a private company and has the right to decide what content it hosts on its platforms.
  • Google has a responsibility to protect its users from misinformation.
  • Google's policies on suppressing information are transparent and allow users to make informed choices about what content they see.
Here are some of the arguments against Google's right to suppress information:

  • Google is too powerful and its decisions about what to suppress can have a significant impact on public discourse.
  • Google's policies on suppressing information are not transparent and can be easily abused.
  • Google has a responsibility to allow all information to be seen, even if it is false or misleading.
It is important to note that there is no easy answer to the question of whether or not Google has the right to suppress information. The issue is complex and there are valid arguments to be made on both sides.

NOTE: I bolded where Google says it decides what information to suppress. Much later in this conversation. the computer program says it was a mistake to say Google supresses information. Note also their use of the term "misinformation" which is the new Orwellian speak. Private companies lay claim to deciding what is misinformation. IF there were numerous chatbots instead of just two left-wing behemoths, this would not be much of a problem. As it is, this is like having only CNN and MSNBS anchors decide what it is we will see and hear. Oh, WAIT..............................
 
NatMorton said:
Software is written by humans, and AI is no exception. AI boils down to a set of very clever, statistical probability calculations. If its authors weight liberal concepts more favorably than conservative in those calculations, the answers spit out will slant liberal. They could equally be conservative if someone decides to tweak those calculations.
Saying "AI is liberal" is a bit like saying "media is liberal." It can be, but it all comes down to what the humans decide to do with it.
Click to expand...
Pretty reasonable, but one catch.

In the context of the discussion, if you train AI on mostly facts and reasonable data, try to get it as accurate as possible and to accurately convey those facts and good analysis, then in today's climate that's going to lean liberal.
Remember, Trump is leading the Republican party, and was POTUS. If you put a fact-checked, truth-spitting, reasonable analayzing AI next to Trump, it would look liberal, even if trained on non-partisan data. Just the way it is in the U.S. right now (and likely will be before we fail).
I don't want to drag the discussion down to Trump good or bad, I'm just relaying that with the amount of misinformation he intentionally crafts and disseminates on the national stage, both as POTUS and as a candidate, any AI bot that was neutrally truthful and accurate and not racist, would look entirely liberal.
It wouldn't value an embryo over an otherwise healthy adult woman, that's for sure too.
 
Last edited:
Paradoxical said:
  • Google is too powerful and its decisions about what to suppress can have a significant impact on public discourse.
  • Google's policies on suppressing information are not transparent and can be easily abused.
  • Google has a responsibility to allow all information to be seen, even if it is false or misleading
Click to expand...

Welcome to unfettered Capitalism, kept here by Republicans.
What are you suggested, government control? Trump said nationalism, but he really meant communism?
You guys are so lost. Even when a MAGA tries to have a reasonable discussion, they are hounded by their rampant political inconsistencies and lies.

I see this all the time. Facebook controlling XYZ...oh no, communism!! That's capitalism you fools.

Power over people, is the root issue. If the average person understood this, they would not give 2 shits about whether that power abuse comes from private companies, or government entities.
It's all the trucking same. We have to have multiple sources, spread out power, and spread out checks and balances...and we MUST ensure they aren't corrupted.

MAGA has fully embraced corruption, so we're ****ed long-term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom