No, the catch is who gets to decide which data constitutes “facts and good analysis.” Someone who leans left will not choose the same sources has someone who leans right, and there’s the source of AI bias.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 like entirely liberal.
Not *really* a catch in the land of the reasonable/rational Nat. Science for example isn't mostly political. It's about facts of reality. It does have some bias injected by its practitioners, but they slowly sift that stuff out, and ultimately it's their GOAL to keep it as factual as possible.No, the catch is who gets to decide which data constitutes “facts and good analysis.” Someone who leans left will not choose the same sources has someone who leans right, and there’s the source of AI bias.
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.
Well, we were close to having "Big Brother' in the novel 1984 deciding for us what was "truth" and allowing us to only see that. One of the best things to ever happen in this world in the past two decades was Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter. Musk is not known as some far right-wing conservative. What he discovered and proved through Matt Taibbi and others was that Twitter was heavily infiltrated by the government with bureaucrats and FBI GMen telling them what to take down. thousands upon thousands of postings and the complete removal of opposing ideas.No, the catch is who gets to decide which data constitutes “facts and good analysis.” Someone who leans left will not choose the same sources has someone who leans right, and there’s the source of AI bias.
Off to the reeducation camps for Tay!You're correct. While AI will "learn" on its own, the programmers will impart their own personal bias into the AI engine. Microsoft's Tay chatbot is often given as an example of why programmers put their bias into AI, as people using Tay started prompting it with questions/comments that led it to be called a "racist" chatbot. Of course, there's also the obvious leftist bias being put in simply because of their political view. After Trump defeated Hillary, Jen Gennai said that Google wouldn't allow the 2016 election to happen again, and Google changed its algorithms to suppress Conservative viewpoints/news while promoting Progressive ones. We know have evidence that Twitter and Fakebook actively did the same thing. The only difference is that Google, Twitter, and Fakebook's bias was in communicating messages/news, as opposed to AI is having its bias built into its entire "knowledge" database.
"We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’ve rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again" -- Jen Gennai , Google's Head of Responsible Innovation
Not *really* a catch in the land of the reasonable/rational Nat. Science for example isn't mostly political. It's about facts of reality. It does have some bias injected by its practitioners, but they slowly sift that stuff out, and ultimately it's their GOAL to keep it as factual as possible.
Even just looking at liberals vs conservatives, the two major movements in our political sphere, liberals support secularism. Conservatives often do not, they support traditions, values, organized religion, and reject a lot of modern stuff like secularism.
Modern conservatism is the opposite of this, it starts with mythological and ideological rules/beliefs, and then seeks to shape reality around that.
Thus, science fits more squarely in the liberal sphere of ideology, and Conservatism is well known to attack science, to reject any aspect of science that doesn't fit their beliefs of the day, they oppose it when their religious and political leaders tell them to, etc.
That's just one example.
It comes down to whether or not Conservative beliefs are more or less accurate, factual, reflecting of reality, etc., than liberal beliefs. Because if the AI is bound by being accurate and reasonable, etc., it may lean liberal precisely because many Conservative beliefs are contrary to reason and facts.
Sadly with a two party system, the big tent of right wing politics as drifted to the absurd. Reasonably trained AI will trend to reject it I suspect.
Yes, you can ovveride that and make any AI as liberal or conservative as you want...I'm just saying if you approach it with underlying rules like facts, accurate, reasonable, reflecting of reality...today that's liberal lean.
Yeah but if Google filters out misinformation more strictly, that means it's biased against conservative propaganda, and Trump would have had a harder time winning.Jen Gennai said that Google wouldn't allow the 2016 election to happen again
We are told to trust the "science". The far left has become exactly like the Catholic cult of centuries gone by. The catholic church ruled the world, was infallible and anyone criticizing it was guilty of blasphemy. All that has changed is that science is the new infallible oracle of truth.Your own liberal bias is showing there. There are many liberal beliefs that are contrary to reason and facts, and they do go for emotional appeal and/or scare tactics. For example, back in January 2006, Al Gore posited that we have “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and be faced with “a true planetary emergency.” That 10 year timeframe expired and the world isn't in an emergency. Likewise, many liberals reject science, and assert that men (i.e., those whose 23rd chromosome is XY) can menstruated. That's scientifically impossible, not to mention contrary to reason and facts, yet the message is being spread.
Yeah but if Google filters out misinformation more strictly, that means it's biased against conservative propaganda, and Trump would have had a harder time winning.
Its' not really about politics so much as about misinformation.
Just like non-partisan news like AP/Reuters, looks in today's climate like left-leaning. I mean, reporting facts and events, without right wing ideological shaping...is these days, liberal lean.
I tap into right wing media now and then, and it's bat shit crazy, both in terms of the lies they spread, the quality and veracity of guests, the "conclusion" they claim to reach, and the priority on the stories they run.
This is a private company, don't you support private companies? It's a good thing if they de-prioritize misinformation.
Far less of an issue than say, stacking courts with ideological conservatives who put beliefs/ideology over reality.
I see religion as a destination and science as a journey, because the former provides the surety of conclusions based on its respective belief system. The latter, is a journey because when a discovery is made, it's with the understanding new information may be found contradicting the original one. From that perspective, science is more "liberal" in the definition of liberal being open to new ideas.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.
You do understand that your concept is based on your hatred.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.
No, you're arguing "both sides"Your own liberal bias is showing there. There are many liberal beliefs that are contrary to reason and facts, and they do go for emotional appeal and/or scare tactics. For example, back in January 2006, Al Gore posited that we have “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and be faced with “a true planetary emergency.” That 10 year timeframe expired and the world isn't in an emergency. Likewise, many liberals reject science, and assert that men (i.e., those whose 23rd chromosome is XY) can menstruated. That's scientifically impossible, not to mention contrary to reason and facts, yet the message is being spread.
Liberalism is common sense.Chat GPT says he'll no, AI is based on common sense. Any interpretation that AI is liberal is MAGA BS. AI deems MAGA to be BS
Continuing my discussion with the Google computer. Just a note that the ChatGPT program would not allow this discussion to continue. It gets frustrated and says it cannot continue any further and to change the topic.
I understand that but that makes Google just like Communist China or any other totalitarian country. It's no wonder America doesn't trust internet companies any longer. I submit that Google is propagandizing.
I understand your concern. It is true that Google's policies on suppressing information could be seen as similar to the censorship practices of totalitarian countries. However, it is important to note that Google is not a government entity and is not bound by the same rules as governments.
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 suppressing certain types of information, it can help to prevent people from being misled.
However, I agree that there is a risk of Google's policies being abused. The company should be transparent about its policies and should be careful not to suppress information that is simply inconvenient or unpopular.
Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide whether or not they believe that Google's policies on suppressing information are justified. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.
I also understand your point about America's distrust of internet companies. The recent revelations about Facebook's data collection practices have shaken public confidence in the tech industry. It is important for internet companies to be transparent about their policies and to be accountable to their users.
I believe that Google is a company that is committed to free speech. However, the company also has a responsibility to protect its users from misinformation. It is a delicate balance, and I think Google is still trying to find the right way to strike that balance.
I think it is important to have a healthy debate about the role of internet companies in suppressing information. We need to be aware of the potential for abuse, but we also need to be careful not to stifle legitimate efforts to combat misinformation.
The question is: Who told Google that they should not allow what Google (and the government) says is "disinformation"? Why do they think they should do that? When they do, how does anyone know what information is being suppressed so that they can make their own decisions after appropriate research? Do Google and other huge companies feel that humans are just people and stupid and need to be sheltered from "wrong" information? We are not talking about hate speech or threats or slurs. We are talking about the main purveyors of information (Google and MS) deciding what to spoon-feed humanity. We KNOW that the FBI and CISA colluded with Big Tech to call information false or misleading and we know that this affected a presidential election. Is THIS the country we want to be?
You are all over the map. You assert that it is/was "progressives" that created America. I have yet to find a person who claims they are a progressive and tell me all the things they believe in, except for some flowery statement about equal rights and fairness. But when you come down to it, they are against free speech, are for high taxation, lack of responsibility and pretty much in favor of socialism and big government control to initiate their ideas of equity and inclusion and open borders.You do understand that your concept is based on your hatred.
You'd still be riding in a buck board, pulled by a mule if it was not for progressive developments, and you'd be trying to find kerosene to fill a kerosene lamp to get light in your house.
As to culture, you'd be caught up in the same censorship containment as the Confederate kept the population with the Confederacy. You could have no ideas, that they did not tell you, you could have and if you did you'd be ostracized based on the Religious Dogma they'd contain you within.
But, it appears based on your commentary, you seem to favor that anyway.
Next time you get sick, don't go to a doctor, because they are progressive in their practice of medicine, stop driving a car, because it is progressive in its development, and don't drive a buck board pulled by a donkey on a public road, because they are progressively improved in their development, and you might want to stop using the internet, because it too is a progressive development.
Stores don't look like they did 60 yrs ago, because they progressively redeveloped themselves, and they don't stock old stuff that has become inefficient and obselete.
As to A.I. .... one thing is sure, every program on your computer "updates" itself, because it has to be progressive to keep up with being safe to use and be functional based on the continued progressive development with software.
Forms of A.I. have been around a very long time, it just was not called such, by that term. Its how they develop programs that are able to do what computers can do.
If you use Search Engines since the first internet connected device, its a form of older version of A.I. that allows that search engine to scan the web and give your result options to select among. without that progressive development, you'd spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to find what ever one is looking for in the vastness of the Internet IP, identifiers.
but you have the choice to "hate" what ever you enjoy "hating". Life won't stand still because you hate its progressive movement and progressive developments, and it won't stagnate itself because you like to conserve into containment the elements of the past.
When it comes to people, there is nothing new under the sun about people. There has always been Good, Bad and Indifferent within the spectrum of people, and that become subjective to the interpretations of people, except in the category of illegality, or acts that harm and cause damages to other, physical, and mental and environmental being.
As long as mankind as existed, there have been heterosexual and homosexuals, and any combination and mixture of those in how "people" think, feel, pursue and engage sexual interactions. In America, Slavers did not only rape black women, they did it to black children and young girls, they engaged homosexuality upon black boys and they engaged homosexuality upon black men. It was not confined to acts just on blacks, they did the same thing to white women, children, young girls, boys and men. They simply had a system that did not hold them accountable... Is that included within what Conservatives are trying to Conserve?
A.I. likely will scan any documentations of the history of such acts... and create and present reports on it.... if that's the Liberalism that you don't like, then maybe your hatred is against the truths being brought forward into the open?
I doubt the people who created A.I. were concerned about conservative or liberal, they are concerned about creating something that scans data and presents a summary.
I don't know enough about A.I. in details to know what its limits or the expanse of its capabilities is....we know that it can perform a lot of functions...
If you say that one more time, I will stop posting on this thread and start my own.What we don’t want the country to be is beholden to conspiracy theorists.
Your own liberal bias is showing there. There are many liberal beliefs that are contrary to reason and facts, and they do go for emotional appeal and/or scare tactics. For example, back in January 2006, Al Gore posited that we have “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and be faced with “a true planetary emergency.” That 10 year timeframe expired and the world isn't in an emergency. Likewise, many liberals reject science, and assert that men (i.e., those whose 23rd chromosome is XY) can menstruated. That's scientifically impossible, not to mention contrary to reason and facts, yet the message is being spread.
We are told to trust the "science". The far left has become exactly like the Catholic cult of centuries gone by. The catholic church ruled the world, was infallible and anyone criticizing it was guilty of blasphemy. All that has changed is that science is the new infallible oracle of truth.
we were told that getting the Covid vaccine would prevent you from catching Covid (
See post 67. I am done here.You have been showing us your chat with BARD regarding Google AI, per se, but you have not yet shown us any examples of the so-called “liberal bias” that you proclaim that it has. Now is the time to start. A couple of topics: climate change, and the 2020 presidential election and Trump’s claims regarding it. Ask it some questions about current and political events and show us this supposed bias.
I really don’t care. If you spout ridiculous conspiracy theories without an iota of actual evidence, then you deserve to be called out on it. You are the perfect example as to why AI filters out right wing misrepresentations and outright lies, such as those from Trump regarding the 2020 election.If you say that one more time, I will stop posting on this thread and start my own.
Edit: No, forget it. I am stopping my postings on this thread because I am incensed that you ignored everything I said as if I am some conspiracy nutjob when everything I posted is about Google's responses to my questions which prove that Google does censor information that some unknown people in the background decide on their own is disinformation. I thought I was doing you a favor in showing you exactly what Google does but you are so blinded with liberalism and hatred for conservatives that you have to call anyone you disagree with a conspiracy theorist and I am tired of it.
See post 67. I am done here.
Reasonable, responsible, held to account, humans. In the future, potentially AI. Who did you think decides what is misinformation?Who decides what is "misinformation" and why?
If the government/MSM positions are largely reasonable and factual, then of course. Why would you argue otherwise.It seems that the term "misinformation" is actually being applied to news or postings that disagree with the official Government/MSM narrative.
See both sides argument above.You are bringing up two different issues. The first is "political bias" while the second is "Publisher vs Platform."
See above. Notice you keep adding the "approved political or government narrative". You convenient label them, but ignore what positions they are pushing.When you say it's a good thing if they de-prioritize misinformation," who decides what is "misinformation" vs information that goes against the approved political or government narrative?
No, you really want this both sides argument, literally you want it enshrined in all platforms too, very unsettling..... Hence, it's not for Twitter or Google to censor, suppress, or shadowban posts that don't meet their narrative while also hiding behind the government protection of being a "platform."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?