But biasing the models purposefully is wrong. Trusting the people who are actually in power in a democracy is the only way. Even if they're dumb. We trust them, or we're not a democracy, we're a technocracy where technocrats determine what everyone is allowed to learn and see.

True, the simplest explanation is that Elon Musk is actually trying to create MechaHitler :)

What about a bot that doesn't like child molesters? Won't that make it sound like the guardian and anti-conservative?

My point is that "anti-woke" or whatever is not balanced. We've constructed statistical models based on enormous corpora of English text, and those models keep telling us that there is not really a statistical difference between whatever Elon Musk is trying to create and MechaHitler!

I'm not saying this is conclusive evidence, but I am saying it's our best inference from the data we have so far.

Could you provide a prompt where the popular LLMs provide false or biased output based on "wokeness"?

>This is like me saying "economic productivity has a well-known right-wing bias" or something goofy like that.

It's funny that the counterexample you chose does more to support OP's point than your own. From Wikipedia[1]

>Since World War II, according to many economic metrics including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth, and corporate profits, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administrations of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.[1][2] Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.[3] Of these, the most statistically significant differences are in real GDP growth, unemployment rate change, stock market annual return, and job creation rate.[4][5]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...

This is an incredibly funny thing to say in the face of Murdoch.

That would have been a good argument when the political differences between liberals and conservatives were mostly on moral or social issues like civil rights and abortion and on economic issues like the correct balance between markets and government.

Those are things where there is no objectively correct position.

Now there are differences on things there this are objectively correct positions.

For example consider climate change. There used to be agreement on the underlying scientific reality, with differences in how to approach it. There was a group of top economic and science advisors from the Reagan and Bush administrations that were arguing for a revenue neutral carbon tax to address climate change and then let the market deal with it. The liberal approach favored more direct limits on emissions and the government more actively promoting replacements for fossil fuels.

Even as late as 2008 Republicans were still in agreement with reality on this. The Republican platform called for reducing fossil fuel use, establishing a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change, a long term tax credit for renewable energy, more recycling, and making consumer products more energy efficient. They wanted to aggressively support technological advances to reduce the dependence of transportation on petroleum, given examples of making cars more efficient (they mention doubling gas mileage) and more flex-fuel and electric vehicles. They talked about honoraria of many millions of dollars for technological developments that could eliminate the need for gas powered cars. They also mentioned promoting wireless communication to increase telecommuting options and reduce business travel.

Compare to now. Now their position ranges from climate change being a hoax from people trying to destroy America to it may be happening but if it is Mankind had nothing to do with it and it isn't bad enough to be something to worry about.

So now any unbiased journalists writing on climate change or adjacent topics, or any unbiased academic working in these areas, is going to automatically be way more aligned with the left than the right.

Please don't make me tap the "grade school biology is intentionally dumbed down because reality is complex" sign.

There are countless ways someone can have a Y chromosome and still be a woman.

There are countless ways someone can have no Y chromosome and still be a man.

Hell there are even a small population of people who are born visibly female with female genitalia (as every human starts female before they (optionally) sex differentiate in the womb (normally)) and they don't sex differentiate until puberty. [1] [2]

Biology is really really complicated and there is never any certainty other than the certainty that there is never certainty. "Gender" is a completely social construct and "Sex" is just a collection of heuristics we use to broadly group people into two common categories. But just like all heuristics, it's not perfect and it can't classify everyone properly. What sex chromosomes you have is one heuristic but it doesn't always work for any number of reasons. Whether the SRY gene activates during gestation is another heuristic and even it isn't perfect. What organs you have also can work but it falls apart in a bunch of edge cases. What hormones your body produces is another one that can generally work as a heuristic but like all the others it breaks down in numerous cases.

---------

Intersex people exist and make up about 1.5-2% of the population.

Trans people exist and make up about 1.5-2% of the population.

It is not an insane idea to recognise that both populations exist and that any single heuristic for differentiating someone into a black and white male/female category is insufficient for the endless complexity that is life.

---------

So to answer your question yes. Someone with XY chromosomes can be a woman either by their gender or by their sex or both.

---------

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%CE%B1-Reductase_2_deficiency

Then explain why you're so hot and bothered about women discussing toxic men.

Do you and your parents believe Epstein's and Trump's victims should't say anything at all, because they have so many not-nice things to say about being raped and abused?

Are there women you don't want saying non-nice things about the toxic ways you treated them, or is it purely ideological that you don't want victims to talk about toxic men like Epstein and Trump, out of the kindness of your heart and forgiveness for unrepentant pedophiles and rapists who you think deserve the benefit of the doubt and second, third, and fourth chances?

Why did your parents teach you to turn a blind eye to toxic behavior and abuse and rape and pedophilia, or is that all on you, and your parents would be disappointed with you for telling women not to name and shame their abusers?