Tons of published papers. If you were really a CS, this is not the argument you would be making. You would be making a very different argument. That is why it is abundantly clear that you are not and never have been a CS. If you are and got a degree, you should demand you money back.
No, there are tons of studies. I can post them all day. They all come to the same conclusion that LLMs are left-leaning politically biased. It is incumbent on you to disprove the mountain of evidence and all of the data scientist are wrong.
Breathe clean air, try and get your head together EP. Marajuana is really not idea for ADHD. I tried to follow Mervin's recipe. Mostly it's potato salad and some green stuff to keep the wife happy.
If you have 'tons' of studies, pick just one and show me you actually understand its methodology. Otherwise, you're just waving around 'science' the way a televangelist waves around a Bible, more interested in authority than accuracy. Bias isn't proven by consensus, it's proven by demonstrating specific distortions in data processing. So go ahead, pick one study, explain its methodology and we'll see if it holds up. Now that was hard to write with one hand eating sandwiches so show your stuff.
You refuse to have honest debates. I have no interest in debating your feelings that you call facts. There is no point. I have a mountain of evidence and you have nothing. You and I both know you already have searched for your evidence and came up with nothing otherwise you would have posted it.
So I win, again, as always. Bit of a pattern forming. FYI: The University of East Anglia study you posted acknowledges that AI might favor empirically supported claims, but it doesn’t analyse whether certain positions are rejected because they’re factually incorrect rather than politically biased. If an AI "leans left" because it refuses to say vaccines cause autism or that Trump won in 2020, that’s not necessarily bias it’s just rejecting falsehoods.
So, just to clarify, do you believe AI should treat falsehoods as valid opinions in the name of 'balance'?
@echopulse A computer scientist (or any trained mathematician, logician, or engineer) should be able to derive answers from first principles, not just look them up. The ability to reason through a problem and verify results independently is what separates actual expertise from someone who just Googles a conclusion and assumes it's correct.
LOL. You are none of those. It is extremely clear. I know that you are not a CS unless you are an expert at pascal. I would believe that. Be honest, how many punch cards have you fed? Oh, brilliant! Truly a masterclass in stating the obvious. Let me simplify it for you, since you seem to struggle with the basics: Provide data or a published study that ChatGPT, any version, isn’t left-leaning politically biased. Go on, dazzle me with your intellectual prowess. But no, instead, you serve up this half-baked, regurgitated nonsense and call it reasoning. your argument = ChatGPT isn't biased. I win. Wow. What a groundbreaking argument. Truly, the pinnacle of critical thinking. I’m in awe of your ability to reduce a complex issue to a toddler’s level of comprehension. Bravo.