Oh, look at you—stubbornly clinging to your little fantasy world like a child refusing to admit the sky is blue. You manage to ignore mountains of science and data just to keep your fragile ego intact. But let’s be real, you’re not here for truth or reason; you’re here to wallow in your own ignorance like a pig in mud. You’re the kind of person who’d argue the Earth is flat even if you were launched into space and saw it with your own eyes. Why? Because admitting you’re wrong would shatter the pathetic little narrative you’ve built for yourself. And honestly, who has the time to waste on someone so willfully stupid? You’re not just wrong—you’re aggressively, proudly wrong.
I have massive ADHD. How can you not keep up? I am ADHDing out right now. Are you sure you have ADHD?
Not any more. I can tell though. Damn, I was lucky I never became an anarcho-capitalism libertarian. Whew. I'm on good brain medicine now.
You still refuse to admit you are wrong. The fact is that LLMs are left-leaning political biased. It has received extensive media coverage and has been the subject of numerous studies, to the point where I genuinely believed it was common knowledge.
"Common knowledge" is just another way of saying "widely repeated without question." The real issue isn’t whether LLMs lean left, but why conservatives interpret factual consistency as bias. If an AI refuses to validate conspiracy theories, that’s not political, it’s just working as intended. If you want a model that aligns with right wing grievance culture, build one, but don’t expect reality to follow suit.
There TONS of studies from tons of sources. Just post one published study that demonstrates no political bias in LLMs. You claimed they are neutral. prove it.
I never claimed LLMs are completely neutral, no system trained on human data can be. But demanding a study that 'proves no bias' is nonsense. That’s like demanding proof that a rock isn’t conscious. The real question is are LLMs biased in a way that distorts reality or simply biased in a way that annoys you by refusing to confirm your feelings as facts?
ZERO. 0. 0% anecdotal evidence. That is what you are providing. I am providing published scientific studies.
Mervin's cooking made me hungry. Need salad sandwich. You've yet to actually engage with what 'bias' means in this context. If you're just throwing studies at the wall hoping one sticks, at least pick one and defend its methodology. Are you arguing LLMs actively distort reality, or just that they don't reinforce your worldview? Because if it's the latter, that's not bias, that's just your ideology being out of step with observable reality.