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.
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.
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.
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.
30 replies
Everyone gets a puppy vs diarrhea forever
LMAO! We’re so fucked.
How come it's all of the bad stuff and none of the cool stuff?
They were doing this in the primary.
I was canvassing and a woman whipped out her phone and asked chatgpt which of the candidates most agreed with her. That's who she said she'd vote for.
People used to ask Google and use the totally unbiased first result to take a test for this...
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.
....no. That's not how any of this works.
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.
Dead govt theory
Bots voting for bots
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.
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.
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.
That's why there was step 2 in that advice, which you conviniently ignored in order to get outraged.
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.
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.