I find it horrifying and dystopian that the part where it "Can't talk politics" is just accepted and your complaint is that it interrupts your ability to talk chilli.
"Go back to bed America." "You are free, to do as we tell you"
"Go back to bed America." "You are free, to do as we tell you"
I was a part of a nice small forum online. Most posts were everyday life posts / personal. The person who ran it seemed well meaning. Then a "no politics" rule appeared. It was fine for a while. I understood what they meant and even I only want so much outrage in my small forums.
Yet one person posted about how their plans to adopt were in jeopardy over their state's new rules about who could adopt what child. This was a deeply important and personal topic for that individual.
As you can guess the "no politics" rule put a stop to that. The folks who supported laws like were being proposed of course thought that they shouldn't discuss it because it is "politics", others felt that this was that individual talking about their rights and life, it wasn't "just politics". Whole forum fell apart after that debacle.
Gemini's response here is sadly fitting internet discourse... in bad way.
I sometimes wish magically there could be a social network of:
1. Real people / real validated names and faces.
2. Paid for by the users...
3. Competent professional moderation.
Don't get me wrong I like my slices of anonymity, and free services, but my positive impressions of such products is waning fast. Over time I want more real...
As almost everything that is personal is in some way political (when taking the meaning "what strategy to use for ruling over a city") even the discussion of what politics is can kill discussions. (Like it seems to have happened in your example.)
So my conclusion is you cannot separate "personal" and "political" into completely disjoint categories.
The rule seems to be in place to make discussions not veer off in direction of which policies to apply/to be in favor of which particular politicians (which is nowadays the biggest taboo for a corporate LLM).
Obviously in this specific case the user isn't trying to talk politics, but the rule isn't dystopian in and of itself. It's simply a reflection of human nature, and that someone at Google knows it's going to be a lot of trouble for no gain if the bot starts to get into politics with users.
It's not like things can't get heated when people in much of the rest of the world discuss politics.
But if the subject isn't entirely verboten, adults will have some practice in agreeing to disagree, and moving on.
With AI this particular cultural export has gone from a quaint oddity, to something that, as a practical matter, can be really annoying sometimes.
I also think another aspect of the "no politics" rule which is important is that it attempts to preserve spaces where people can just enjoy things. People need to escape from politics and just enjoy the good things in life together. This is important for personal mental health but also social cohesion, as it's extremely difficult to have positive relationships with those you only ever argue politics with. If we don't have spaces which enforce a no politics rule, you can't ever unplug from the madness and that isn't good.
* locals everywhere discuss politics between themselves, many are able to discuss politics 'reasonably' but things can and do get heated, AND
* it's good advice as a traveller to not get drawn into political discussions with locals. Listen by all means, going further can be a bad move.
I recall a radiometric survey in Nor'Western India when an underground mini nuke was detonated near our aircraft .. that got rather tense, particularly when the others were detonated and Pakistan responded.
Not a good time to discuss where the border ran.
I don't think that's typically what is meant when discussing 'leaving politics out of work' though.
It's too common that people say "politics" when they mean "party politics", and I know that's not a battle I'm going to win. But it's still necessary to remember that a strict rule of "no politics" is an oxymoron, being itself inherently political.
There has to be a better way about it. As I see it, to be productive, AI agents have to be able to talk about politics, because at the end of the day politics are everywhere. So following up on what they do already, they'll have to define a model's political stance (whatever it is), and to have it hold its ground, voicing an opinion or abstaining from voicing an opinion, but continuing the conversation, as a person would (at least as those of us who don't rage-quit a conversation when they hear something slightly controversial).
But anyway, when one is rarely or never challenged on their beliefs, they become rusty. Do you trust them to do a good job training their own views into the model, let alone training in the views of someone on the opposite side of the spectrum?
Also, as long as it's not training the whole model on the fly as with the Tay fiasco, I'd actually be quite interested in an LLM that would debate you and possibly be convinced and change its stance for the rest of that conversation with you. "Strong opinions weakly held" and all.
It's a fine line, but it is something the BBC managed to do for a very long time. The BBC does not itself present an opinion on Politics yet facilitates political discussion through shows like Newsnight and The Daily Politics (rip).
OP can go talk politics until he's blue in the face with someone willing to talk politics with them.
If the model says “sorry, no politics, let’s talk about something else” - there’s a tiny fraction of a minority will make a comment like you did and be done with it. We can all move on.
If the model responds as neutrally as possible, maybe “Obama’s chilli is a great recipe, let me know when you want to begin”, we end up with ENDLESS clutching of pearls, WOKE MODEL SUGGESTS LEFT WING CHILLI BETTER THAN RIGHT WING CHILLI!!! CANCEL LEFTIST GOOGLE!!!
And then the bit that actually bugs me, just to stir up some drama you’ll get the occasional person who absolutely knows better and knows exactly what they’re doing: “I’m Professor MegaQualifications, and actually I will show that those who have criticised the models as leftist are being shut down[1] and ignored but the evidence shows they have a point…”
[1] always said unironically at a time when it’s established as a daily recurring news story being rammed down our throats because it’s one of those easy opinion generators that sells engagement like few other stories outside of mass bloodshed events