Comment by caprese

This is a good step

I've given input on political issues as well as gender issues under multiple identities and personas to gain consensus

Almost no progress on consensus regarding political issues but on some sex and gender issues the male persona was unqualified to "mansplain" or had to much privilege to contribute or complain, where the same information was agreed upon and deemed helpful coming from the non-male persona - assumed to be female

This is more about the decision path people make to discredit a someone. When confronted with information that deviates from your script, people typically look for faults in the messenger instead of the actual information. You look for words that a different party would use exclusively to pigeonhole the messenger as the other, you look for other biases.

I felt that even if an A.I. was created to try to aggregate perspectives and offer its observations, people would try to disagree with it based on who created it. A valid criticism, but what would be left with to offer potentially unifying perspectives.

I like this and I imagine how it can be trained to create a voice that you agree with, but that nobody else would hear.

..... based on your cookies.

Then everybody gets to hear a different voice and mostly the same information - perhaps slightly different words as to not undermine the illusion.