You can see it a lot if you ask anything remotely political to the different AI models... in some places you can definitely see the hand-editing/overrides as well.

Hard to get around these kinds of issues and definitely leads me to avoid them for non-technical questions.

▲

_doctor_love a day ago | parent | next [-]

Do you have examples of this? I feel I'm able to get decent answers around politics from all the main chatbot providers, the key is in the prompting and then applying critical thinking while reading the response.

That said, there is no such thing as an objective unbiased political opinion. Chinese LLMs may have issues with events of 1989 but Western LLMs have their blindspots too.

▲

tracker1 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Not off the top of my head... just on occasion I'd ask them to summarize out of curiosity. The most recent was what given people from history might select on the red vs blue button meme circulating this past week.

The differences between Claude, OpenAI and Grok can be very interesting to say the least. I feel that Grok tends to do better with recent/current events, and I find Claude a bit more balanced on historical events. Just my own take.

▲

frumplestlatz a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> That said, there is no such thing as an objective unbiased political opinion.

That depends; some things (but not many) are straightforward enough that you can derive conclusions purely from first principles reasoning.

If you walk a model like ChatGPT through that reasoning, you’ll often wind up in a spot where the model readily admits that a clear conclusion is logically entailed but it is absolutely forbidden from uttering it.

What’s more telling is how it becomes increasingly difficult to hold the model to strict first principles reasoning the closer you get to the forbidden entailment. It will smuggle in unsupported assumptions, apply asymmetric standards of evidence, strawman the position and argue against that, etc.

It requires a great deal of careful effort to point out its formal fallacies without biasing the result, and in the end, you wind up with it admitting it simply can’t say what it has proven.

I work in formal methods/verification and this is one of my usual litmus tests when a new model comes out.

▲

_doctor_love a day ago | parent | next [-]

> some things (but not many) are straightforward enough that you can derive conclusions purely from first principles reasoning.

Examples?

▲

renewiltord 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Realistically, I think anyone can tell when they’re being asked “Really? Lions will bite your head off if you put it in their mouths? Prove it”

	▲	_doctor_love 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I guess but that's really not what I'm asking here - the parent commenter is making a fantastical claim and I'm asking for stronger proof than "trust me bro."

▲

nvr219 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If you walk a model like ChatGPT through that reasoning, you’ll often wind up in a spot where the model readily admits that a clear conclusion is logically entailed but it is absolutely forbidden from uttering it.

Do you have an example of this? I want to try it.

▲

dsign a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not just politics. A while ago, as an experiment, I wrapped some teleological[^1] questions in a small story of a demon offering a slightly ambiguous bargain to a person. Then I had a lot of fun having the frontier models evaluate if the demon was "good" or "bad". ChatGPT ranked as a rancid right-wing conservative ready to burn somebody at the stake, while Opus reasoning was chill. Interestingly, both models could clearly "understand" the deal, i.e. reason about its final consequences for the trapped soul, but ChatGPT moralized lots and made about as much sense as a stubborn priest.

[^1]: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/teleology

	▲	tracker1 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Should throw Grok/xAI in the mix sometime.