Comment by MomsAVoxell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MomsAVoxell | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> AI tries to describe the options there goes all faint hopes for "unbiasedness"

Is it bias, though, if the AI is trained on the materials of the parties involved, rather than that of public opinion?

A fellow I know has built exactly this, specifically for analysing the various Dutch political parties positions on things, their polices, constitutional stance, and so on:

https://kieschat.nl

So maybe what this story is really about, is old-school-media being terrified of losing eyeballs to a new generation of voters who, rather than listen to the wisdom of the journalistic elite, would rather just grep for details on their own dime, and work things out vis a vis who gets the power and who doesn't ...

If AI gives people a chance to actually understand the political system, like as in actually and properly, then I can see why legacy media would be gunning for it.

> Is it bias, though, if the AI is trained on the materials of the parties involved, rather than that of public opinion?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "materials". It's quite common in US elections for politicians to make claims that are completely contrary to their actual actions. Even for objective facts, like I voted for X bill when they didn't.

So an AI trained on the campaigns materials wouldn't do an accurate job of portraying what that politician will attempt to do.

>So an AI trained on the campaigns materials wouldn't do an accurate job of portraying what that politician will attempt to do.

Yes, this is why its so useful to use AI to discover these cases, and make the actual details of the politicians lies and subterfuge fully exposed.

For other materials - such as the 1,000-page bills 'o fat and so on - I can also imagine seeing AI give me, very specifically, details of the politician-in-targets' betrayal of an electorate.

This, more than ever, compels an aggressive stance vis a vis AI in politics. Anyone telling you not to do it, for any reason, is probably doing it.

> I guess it depends on what you mean by "materials". It's quite common in US elections for politicians to make claims that are completely contrary to their actual actions. Even for objective facts, like I voted for X bill when they didn't.

So like everywhere else?

Public tolerance for this will vary. US voters do seem _particularly_ tolerant of outright, obvious lies by politicians.

> Is it bias, though, if the AI is trained on the materials of the parties involved, rather than that of public opinion?

Since those materials are biased (and very often misleading), yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com