I do. Why, you don't? There are as much as possible objective assessments of complex things. Then, there are possible sets of assumption that can be applied to those objective assessments. All of those can be put on the analytic table.
What would an "objective neutral AI model" look like?
The training data itself is just a snapshot of the internet. Is this "neutral"? It depends on your goals but any AI trained on this dataset is skewed towards a few clusters. In some cases you get something that merely approximates a Reddit or 4chan simulator. If that's what you want - then great but you can see why some people would want to "debias" that outcome!
You might argue the "world as it truly exists" is the correct target. But bear in mind we are talking about human culture - not physics and chemistry - you're going to struggle to get both consensus and any sane methodology for getting that into an AI.
A reasoner can strive for "objective neutrality" with good results.
An LLM is not a reasoner - or I am missing (ugly time constraints) the details of the compression activity during training that acts as pseudo-reasoning (operating at least some consistency decisions) -, and while an interest in not making it insulting or crass can be immediately understandable, speaking of "objective neutrality" does not really match the context of LLMs.
LLMs (to the best of my information) "pick from what they have heard". An entity capable of "objective neutrality" does not - it "evaluates".
> A reasoner can strive for "objective neutrality" with good results.
By "reasoner" do you largely mean "person"? If I have issues with your statement but they are probably a slight distraction to the point at hand.
> speaking of "objective neutrality" does not really match the context of LLMs.
Agreed. They produce output based on their training data. But the use and evaluation of LLM output by a person is what we're discussing here. And that's where (flawed) concepts like objectivity and neutrality enter the discussion.
Regular mortals can have any certainty about this dbut espite the logical neccessity that this fact "exists" in some sense.
I think we're essentially also talking about the Overton Window to some degree. But that means you need to be OK with the thought that a sudden rise in extremism on one side of the political spectrum can alter the what you personally have to regard as "neutral and objective".