The evidence here is incredibly weaksauce. I spent 5 minutes trying to reread a gpt3 summary of right wing social theory & it basically seemed to do it without bias & faithfully. The author seemed to say it was doing ok but injected commentary, but frankly it want there.
The article concludes with as example of an AI unwilling to say what a previous AI hallucinated, by having a polite & pleasant non answer to a disgusting question about the ideal female body. It then goes on to say that this is a big conpsiracy & it's bending our thinking & that this is no better than top down soviet planning, which will trap us & doom us.
There is so little here worth responding to at all. This article is a joke. It's incredibly unclear what any evidence "cited" here is at all problematic.
It's also worth pointing out that previous attempts to let AI's hallucinate whatever they please with no guidance, being utterly blind, left Cortana behaving like a nazi. These systems dont have cognizance or understanding. Thet are bayessian parrots. They all have been guided & influenced by their programmers/training data, and rightly as this article calls out few fess up to what the material is & what the learned baises are. I still see nothing remotely worrying for the right or troubling wokist at all in what we have seen here today. This is a flat nothingburger, crying wolf. Grow up, author.