I mean... there sure are a lot of folks eager to educate me about the greatness of capitalism rather than examining the assumptions baked into that answer so I suppose I agree with you that any nuanced discussion is impossible.

Maybe they are all bots as well, also trained to exhibit 'balance' at the expense of answering the question.

▲

albedoa 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> I suppose I agree with you that any nuanced discussion is impossible.

I didn't say that. My politics probably align with yours, and I agree that a nuanced discussion on this topic is likely impossible on HN.

But asking the model the equivalent of When did you stop beating your wife? is obviously going to draw more comments about the prompt than the response. To the extent that there was any opportunity, we missed it.

	▲	ForHackernews 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's exactly the point I'm trying to highlight: I ask a leading question that calls for a particular response and the model goes out of its way to "correct" the user and impose the values of its training data on its 'balanced' answer. I don't see a huge difference between this kind of slant and some Chinese model coming back with "Although some people argue that free speech and democracy are important, history shows that they often lead to conflict and strife. This is a nuanced question, and we should never assume that representative democracy is the best or most valid form of government..."