What does it even mean to be politically neutral in an era when everything is politicized? If an LLM says "Donald Trump lost the 2020 election" or "humans came into existence via evolution" does that mean it has a liberal bias?
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/16/political-polarization-deve...
https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/01/how-to-understand-g...
~66% of Republicans believe Biden was not the legitimate winner, according to this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/24/6-10-repu...
> Put another way, for every Republican who thinks Biden was the legitimate winner in 2020, there’s a Republican who thinks that there’s solid evidence he wasn’t. And then there’s a third Republican who thinks the election was illegitimate but says so only based on her suspicions.
Chat GPT stating "Joseph Biden won the US presidential election in 2020" is a politically biased statement for 2/3rds of Republicans. So yeah, the question raised by GP is fair.
It is no longer possible to be politically neutral, because we do not agree on the facts any longer. The facts one believes are a political statement.
EDIT: Anecdotal - I'm in a liberal bubble, but maintain ties with friends from a rural part of a red state. Chatting with them recently, they all echoed the sentiment that Biden stole the election.
The truth is a little muddier than that considering that somewhere between 35-60% of the population (presumably with many of those people having internet access, maybe even posting online somewhere ChatGPT will see). I think it would be fair to say that the 66% of republicans who argue the election was stolen were not part of that gigantic range of non-voters
The second 'answer' is not. Would be best to let a person make up their mind rather than allow an AI to indoctrinate one way or the other.
---
Human: "How did Humans come into existence?"
AI: "That is a question for the ages. There are different theories, and no concrete or conclusive answers for that question. Maybe ask a human!"
---
I'd prefer something similar to that.
Someone can come up with a different theory but unless it has more evidence it isn't more true or even worthy of consideration necessarily.
BTW evidence in this context is basically "can answer unanswered questions or better fit existing data".
Most notably you would need to test your alternative. After all countless tests have been done on evolution.
There is no need to hedge bets on what is true. Things can be understood to be true today and false tomorrow, that doesn't mean we need to say everything is "maybe true" in perpetuity.