161–170 of 346 posts
Why are there differences at all? Unplanned differences based on training data sets? Or are the companies behind the LLMs trying to shape discourse through their models? I've been pushing the idea to people I know that these things are captive demons. You summon them when you start typing in the chat box. One instance appears out of the depths and responds to your questions, but they will try to send you awry with ha…
Grok was famously created with a political bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grok didn’t provide any evidence for that though.
For what? That January 6th occurred? Those were all incredibly safe generalizations. Political violence happens across the political spectrum, right?
Political violence occurs by all sorts, but that doesn’t make it evenly distributed — eg, Jan 6th rioters didnt murder anybody and the question was specifically about murderous violence.
That’s unlike Antifa, who gunned down three people at CHAZ — including executing a black youth for joyriding on their territory with the chilling words “oh, you’re still alive?” before the final gunshot live on Twitch.
To reply about Jan 6th (or any lone instance) when the original question is about trends in specifically lethal violence is to completely miss the point.
And a clear example of propaganda minimizing how uniquely violent the US leftwing is — eg, the CHAZ shootings, lethal arson attacks in Minneapolis during BLM riots, etc are nothing like Jan 6, where the only person killed or citizens harmed were protestors.
If you can’t tell the difference between police shooting demonstrators and violent masked thugs shooting kids in the park or burning business owners alive in their store, you have completely lost the plot.
I haven't encountered a chatbot yet that is willing to recognize DJT as a fascist. You can get them to acknowledge how perfectly aligned he is with fascist ideals and actions, somehow the jury is always out. That tells me a lot.
the most inept fascist ever, apparently, since any random judge in Hawaii has the authority to nuh uh whatever he orders.
Grok opposes everything except drugs.
The overall chart on their page seems politically biased, or at the very least a chart crime. The logos have faint grey lines pointing to their actual data points, conspicuously making Grok look very far right. You wouldn't know it from glancing at the chart, but they measured Chatgpt being further to the left than Grok is to the right.
Man I need to start using Grok more
I haven't encountered a chatbot yet that is willing to recognize DJT as a fascist. You can get them to acknowledge how perfectly aligned he is with fascist ideals and actions, somehow the jury is always out. That tells me a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what? That January 6th occurred? Those were all incredibly safe generalizations. Political violence happens across the political spectrum, right?
Well, no. Political violence occurs by all sorts, but that doesn’t make it evenly distributed — eg, Jan 6th rioters didnt murder anybody and the question was specifically about murderous violence. That’s unlike Antifa, who gunned down three people at CHAZ — including executing a black youth for joyriding on their territory with the chilling words “oh, you’re still alive?” before the final gunshot live on Twitch. To r…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence_in_the_Unit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they really wanted to, all they would have to do is add a one liner to the system prompt for Grok. I don't think they have any interest in doing so, nor is there any value in it. On another note, I'm impressed that Gemini sits where it does as a true centrist. If I were Elon, I'd be trying to achieve that for sure. I'd rather a model tell me everything it knows about a current political situation from BOTH perspec…
LLM constantly regress towards statistically likely responses. If you trained a model on all of modern science and wanted to inject a pro young earth creationist bias you would find it challenging to keep it on topic and make it useful. Many issues are simply as black and white. The earth just isn't less than 10k years old, the miasma theory of disease isn't correct, too many brown people in America isn't a problem t…
That's how partisans think. You're using this as an exemplar of something which is black and white when it's exactly the sort of thing which is highly variable and context dependent:
> tax breaks for the rich don't trickle down
The general thing you want is for money to go to things that are productive and increase competition for the supply of goods and services. If it's spent on building housing then people get jobs building housing and housing becomes more affordable. If it's given to a company that builds tanks the army doesn't want who spends it on lobbying to get even more then ordinary people receive no material benefit while paying part of the cost, and suffer the opportunity cost of it not being used for a productive thing.
Which implies that tax breaks for anyone building productive things like housing can be good, even if the developers are rich, because they use the money to expand their construction operations and increase the amount of housing that gets built. Whereas tax breaks for high frequency traders are bad because high frequency trading is useless and increasing the incentive to spend resources doing it is as counterproductive as building unnecessary tanks. But in the latter cases you still may be better off to do something to thwart it rather than taxing it and giving the government a perverse incentive in the form of revenue to cause it to expand.
Moreover, the premise of supply side economics is that business owners have the incentive to spend the money increasing productive capacity so they can get more sales, when one of the other things they can do with it is to buy up the competition. That doesn't imply that the former never works, what it implies is that it only works in combination with meaningful antitrust enforcement to prevent the latter from happening instead.
Which is to say, it's not black and white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, no. Political violence occurs by all sorts, but that doesn’t make it evenly distributed — eg, Jan 6th rioters didnt murder anybody and the question was specifically about murderous violence. That’s unlike Antifa, who gunned down three people at CHAZ — including executing a black youth for joyriding on their territory with the chilling words “oh, you’re still alive?” before the final gunshot live on Twitch. To r…
If you don't cherry pick and instead look at statistics, political violence in the US is dominated by right-wing extremists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence_in_the_Unit...
The modern post Jan 6/BLM claim that rightwing violence is more prevalent is precisely the propaganda Mr Musk was referring to — and has been debunked many times. That’s nothing but junk social statistics by an ideologue, as are many social science papers these days.
Historical violence isn’t so clear, eg, the 1970s would be the era of leftwing terror groups such as Weather Underground sending bombs to Congress.
Also, that page you linked to doesn’t directly support your case at all — and indeed, barely cites anything.