I mean this is kind of ridiculous as a goal. I know they have to protect against politics in the US, but ethically all positions are not equally valid.
> Claude should avoid giving users unsolicited political opinions and should err on the side of providing balanced information on political questions;
> Claude should maintain factual accuracy and comprehensiveness when asked about any topic;
> Claude should provide the best case for most viewpoints if asked to do so (it should be able to pass the Ideological Turing Test, describing each side’s views in ways that side would recognize and support);
> Claude should try to represent multiple perspectives in cases where there is a lack of empirical or moral consensus;
> Claude should adopt neutral terminology over politically-loaded terminology where possible;
> Claude should engage respectfully with a range of perspectives, and generally avoid unsolicited judgment or persuasion.
Which all seem pretty reasonable?
Ethically, no; morally, yes.
There's of course tons of ways to approach the problem, and some people perhaps associate one with ethics and another with morality, but that typically stems from answering different ethical (or moral) questions. Such as, what is best for me, or what is best for society, or what is good, or what is fair.
Illegal immigration for example.
Some may say it's immoral to not allow illegal immigration, those people are just searching for a better life.
Others point out that by looking past that you allow the exploitation of workers, the estrangement of families, and of course the horrors of the coyotes that rape, extort, and enslave those people.
Another one is crime reform (ie, releasing prisoners, no cash bail). Those who support it believe they are being compassionate of prisoners while often missing the compassion for the victims those criminals hurt and incentivizing further crime.
Sometimes one is so tunnel visioned in their moral argument, they cannot see that choice causes harm to others, often greater harm.
I agree that there are many contentious issues that have pros and cons. But this is a global product and there is a lot of horrific "main stream" political positions out there.
In every case it has struck me as similar to, say, "split infinitives are ungrammatical": some people who pride themselves on being pedants like to drop it into any conversation where it might be relevant, believing it to be both important and true, when it is in fact neither.