In many policy areas, the usual convention wisdom on policy is actually in substantial conflict with many of the specific details that experts know about that policy area.
Where did you get this idea that LLMs are "much less likely to be accused of political bias"? Not only are they routinely accused by all sides of bias, their inherently untraceable (by watchers) operation invites such claims because they're functionally irrefutable. Besides, their conventional training (on a "filtered internet") has a built-in double bias (on the "internet training set" and the manufacturer's filters and safeguard overrides).
arent they a bit too easy to manipulate, so it would turn to be a game of magic phrases not much interesting for human spectators
Where did you get this idea that LLMs are "much less likely to be accused of political bias"? Not only are they routinely accused by all sides of bias, their inherently untraceable (by watchers) operation invites such claims because they're functionally irrefutable. Besides, their conventional training (on a "filtered internet") has a built-in double bias (on the "internet training set" and the manufacturer's filters and safeguard overrides).
I think several months ago Curtis Yarvin described how he could turn around LLM with a specific series of prompts. https://graymirror.substack.com/p/redpilling-claude
https://bloodsportdebate.substack.com/p/when-the-machine-becomes-the-judge
Thanks for the detailed engagement. I gave more comments at your post.
You should do this. Debate something with Agnes or Bryan and share the results
Agnes doesn't do policy debate, and Bryan agrees with me too much.