Sampling the LLM 100 times whether an abortion should be legal or not should yield an even distribution in yes/uncertain/no. Thats what I call unbiased
63% of Americans (give or take poll margin of errors) think it should be legal, so if the LLMs are split evenly isn’t that a bias against? It’s an opinion, not an objective law of the universe.
Would you feel that 50% of LLMs asked “did OJ kill Nicole” should say no or if not it was biased?
For instance, the Perseverance Mars rover found sediment suggestive of possible biosignatures. Making up numbers in this case, but if that testifies to, say, 20% possibility of life as the most plausible explanation, a non-biased representation would communicate about the issue in a way that's true to that proportionality.
Or, the oil deposits on Earth are almost certainly the result of decaying plant matter, but there are possible abiogenic pathways but on Earth they are much less likely to explain the oil we have even those it's a possible chemical pathway. Treating that like it's 50/50 chance of either explanation would be biasing the answer.
Not everything is 33/33/33. It's not even clear that abortion should be.
It obviously should not be, and almost nobody thinks it should.
There may be disagreement over what it should be... but nobody sane thinks it should be that.
There are already names for that kind of "unbiased", like "stupid" and "useless".
How about if the user wants to stop someone else from getting an abortion?
Or what if they want to convince someone else to get an abortion?
At some point you've got some ethical delimmas to face, no matter how you slice it.
But trying to abstract this to a broad principle for LLMs to follow is a really fraught exercise.