And the LLMs trained and operated by companies whose leaders are unscrupulous fascists, and who pander to Trump for the sake of favors. It’s naive to assume they’re giving unbiased answers.
True, but it’s also naive to hope people are not going to use it for questions like that. At least they’re not asking Grok (which some people are just likely also doing).
I also doubt ChatGPT is just going to say “vote Republican”. Maybe I’ll just try later, just out of curiosity.
I also doubt ChatGPT is just going to say “vote Republican”.
Propaganda is usually far more subtle than that. You can gently color the way the issues are framed, choose what to present as the important questions and deciding factors, omit to mention certain evidence or arguments, describe some candidates in appealing terms and others less appealingly, etc. All it needs to do is nudge some of the questioners a little to the right, not overtly or dramatically, but just enough to tip the votes statistically just a little bit towards the Republicans.
The stated case for AI here is to save time, but to save time you must either trust the results, or spend more time than the non-AI path to verify (because now you’re doing the reading and verifying you would have done in the first place; and if AI is wrong or hallucinated, you may have just wasted a lot of time).
AI is definitionally only faster when its results are not verified and are just trusted.
If you’re thinking, “Well, I wouldn’t verify everything, just the things that may be wrong or important,” then you’ve already outsourced credibility to not just AI, but also your gut feelings. The most important things you can learn are the things that your feelings are wrong about.
That’s kind of the whole problem with AI in every domain: it can save you time if you let it churn out unchecked garbage, but if you check its outputs it won’t save you time and you’d have been better doing the work yourself. It’s still not clear whether there’s any room for actual value in between these.
I think it still save time because like I said the traditional way also require verification and critical thinking . If a person use the AI without critical thinking yes it bad but it is still on that person not the tool.
Please learn to read. I never said you should use it to form opinions , I said you can use it to get the details then verfiy if they are factual and build your own opinion based on the information.
I’m sorry, but the dichotomy between “information” and “thinking” is false and you are being led to false conclusions because you have false premises.
Information from an AI tool is not reliable, and I’ve found frequent errors constantly with frontier models’ “sources.” The process of information acquisition is also typically inseparable from digesting and understanding it, to say nothing of the fact that “information” itself not “objective” because it is typically very context and viewpoint dependent.
Nothing is 100%, sure. But starting from reliable sources is faster than starting from unreliable sources. AI is like starting from the cake and working back to confirm the eggs, the milk, and the flour. It’s faster if you instead start with verifiable ingredients.
P.S.: We’re just having a discussion here, no need to downvote me.
AI is like starting from the cake and working back to confirm the eggs, the milk, and the flour.
that analogy does not make any sense.
i guess it depends a lot on how you use it. you can ask it for an opinion, or you can ask it for facts. and facts can be links for primary sources. so as any tool, it can be used well and it can be used bad.
maybe you are just too focused on one way that you see as bad, without even knowing whether that is the way these people chose.
i am all for people trying to do the research before making a vote. and if the alternative would be watching fox news, i don’t really see how it can get worse.
bases on what? stop being hysterical just because you don’t like ai. i am not big fan either, but that is not the point here. no matter hot you gather the information, you need to verify them. end of story.
here is useful guide:
google or chatgpt for the information
verify what you have found
PLEASE stop outsourcing your own thinking.
seems you weren’t doing much thinking during composition of this comment either, your fight or fight response took precedence.
The vast majority of people who do step one won’t do step two, and if step two is necessary, which it is, then step one is pointless and can be skipped.
I’m gonna push back on this in that you have no idea how or what structural biases are being baked into these. They also are intentionally built to give a sense of neutrality to things that aren’t neutral.
Also, it’s well known at this point that marketers are focusing on slip websites which can get agree gated into ml model training data sets. The new meta is to get your product into the llm and get the llm to recommend you.
Yeah, there are implicit and explicit biases at every stage of these models. The training data they collect, how they clean and use their training data, the actual training methodology, the prompts to literally alter the final output.
That’s not to mention the main things LLM aren’t aware of, which is who are you as a person. An LLM doesn’t know nor can it understand your life experiences and how that shapes your opinions on who is best to represent you. Handing over cognition like this is basically throwing away your vote as you’ve forfeited one of the major methods you have to influence your government.
Completely legitimate use case.
Your candidates all have websites. An LLM can parse all of them and tell you what their core values/goals are.
If any align with yours, look at them more closely and see if they’ve got your vote.
And the LLMs trained and operated by companies whose leaders are unscrupulous fascists, and who pander to Trump for the sake of favors. It’s naive to assume they’re giving unbiased answers.
This isn’t even theoretical.
Remember when Grok was defensively insisting Musk was a champion piss drinker whose survival was more important than the rest of humanity combined?
True, but it’s also naive to hope people are not going to use it for questions like that. At least they’re not asking Grok (which some people are just likely also doing).
I also doubt ChatGPT is just going to say “vote Republican”. Maybe I’ll just try later, just out of curiosity.
Propaganda is usually far more subtle than that. You can gently color the way the issues are framed, choose what to present as the important questions and deciding factors, omit to mention certain evidence or arguments, describe some candidates in appealing terms and others less appealingly, etc. All it needs to do is nudge some of the questioners a little to the right, not overtly or dramatically, but just enough to tip the votes statistically just a little bit towards the Republicans.
Or it will make shit up, as they’re known to do. Fuck off with this shit. Outsourcing your own thinking is stupid, cowardly, and deadly for everybody.
You can ask the ai for the source and the relevant quote than verify if it halucinate or not , still faster than using traditional ways
Or you could just look it up first and skip the whole ‘might be made up slop’ bit.
Sometimes you need to find very specific details that would take a lot more time to find manually by browsing dozens of articles
And those details are fake. Or not. Who’s to say?
There is where verification comes , it not like the manual traditional way of searching can’t give me fake infos.
The stated case for AI here is to save time, but to save time you must either trust the results, or spend more time than the non-AI path to verify (because now you’re doing the reading and verifying you would have done in the first place; and if AI is wrong or hallucinated, you may have just wasted a lot of time).
AI is definitionally only faster when its results are not verified and are just trusted.
If you’re thinking, “Well, I wouldn’t verify everything, just the things that may be wrong or important,” then you’ve already outsourced credibility to not just AI, but also your gut feelings. The most important things you can learn are the things that your feelings are wrong about.
That’s kind of the whole problem with AI in every domain: it can save you time if you let it churn out unchecked garbage, but if you check its outputs it won’t save you time and you’d have been better doing the work yourself. It’s still not clear whether there’s any room for actual value in between these.
I think it still save time because like I said the traditional way also require verification and critical thinking . If a person use the AI without critical thinking yes it bad but it is still on that person not the tool.
Or you could just figure out what your own damn opinion is yourself and not have to rely on an unthinking chatbot to think for you.
Please learn to read. I never said you should use it to form opinions , I said you can use it to get the details then verfiy if they are factual and build your own opinion based on the information.
gathering information and thinking are two different things. see, i just gave you information, now all you have to do is think about it for a bit.
I’m sorry, but the dichotomy between “information” and “thinking” is false and you are being led to false conclusions because you have false premises.
Information from an AI tool is not reliable, and I’ve found frequent errors constantly with frontier models’ “sources.” The process of information acquisition is also typically inseparable from digesting and understanding it, to say nothing of the fact that “information” itself not “objective” because it is typically very context and viewpoint dependent.
neither is information from google, everything has to be crosschecked and verified, but you have to start somewhere.
Nothing is 100%, sure. But starting from reliable sources is faster than starting from unreliable sources. AI is like starting from the cake and working back to confirm the eggs, the milk, and the flour. It’s faster if you instead start with verifiable ingredients.
P.S.: We’re just having a discussion here, no need to downvote me.
that analogy does not make any sense.
i guess it depends a lot on how you use it. you can ask it for an opinion, or you can ask it for facts. and facts can be links for primary sources. so as any tool, it can be used well and it can be used bad. maybe you are just too focused on one way that you see as bad, without even knowing whether that is the way these people chose.
i am all for people trying to do the research before making a vote. and if the alternative would be watching fox news, i don’t really see how it can get worse.
That’s why there was step 2 in that advice, which you conviniently ignored in order to get outraged.
Which is more efficient?
“Let software tell me what I should do, then verify for myself whether I should do it.”
Or:
“Verify for myself what I should do.”
PLEASE stop outsourcing your own thinking.
bases on what? stop being hysterical just because you don’t like ai. i am not big fan either, but that is not the point here. no matter hot you gather the information, you need to verify them. end of story.
here is useful guide:
seems you weren’t doing much thinking during composition of this comment either, your fight or fight response took precedence.
Stop defending the deadly slop machines, dummy. Your idiocy hurts everybody.
Oh no, poor baby ran out of the arguments, so it had to resort to profanities…
You denied the evidence. Fuck you for choosing death for everybody.
The vast majority of people who do step one won’t do step two, and if step two is necessary, which it is, then step one is pointless and can be skipped.
no, it can’t be skipped. because you can’t verify information you haven’t gathered.
and any information gathered by another means have to be verified as well, so step two is always necessary.
If you think it’s a good idea to ask AI how to vote, please don’t vote at all.
We don’t need you handing your vote to a robot … or to the techno-fascist prick holding the robot’s leash.
…no. That’s not how any of this works.
Dead govt theory
Bots voting for bots
I’m gonna push back on this in that you have no idea how or what structural biases are being baked into these. They also are intentionally built to give a sense of neutrality to things that aren’t neutral.
Also, it’s well known at this point that marketers are focusing on slip websites which can get agree gated into ml model training data sets. The new meta is to get your product into the llm and get the llm to recommend you.
Yeah, there are implicit and explicit biases at every stage of these models. The training data they collect, how they clean and use their training data, the actual training methodology, the prompts to literally alter the final output.
That’s not to mention the main things LLM aren’t aware of, which is who are you as a person. An LLM doesn’t know nor can it understand your life experiences and how that shapes your opinions on who is best to represent you. Handing over cognition like this is basically throwing away your vote as you’ve forfeited one of the major methods you have to influence your government.