Comment by b3ing

That’s essentially true of the whole Internet.

All the content is derived from that which is the most capable of surviving and being reproduced.

So by default the content being created is going to be click bait, attention grabbing content.

I’m pretty sure the training data is adjusted to counter this drift, but that means there’s no LLM that isn’t skewed.

I'd expect LLMs' biases to originate from the companies' system prompts rather than the volume of training data that happens to align with those biases.

in his opinion, Grok is the most neutral LLM out there. I cannot find a single study that support his opinion. I find many that supports the opposite opinion. However I don't trust in any of the studies out there - or at least those well-ranked in google, which makes me sad. We never had more information than today and we are still completely lost.

Did he mention how he tries to censor any model that doesn't conform to his worldview? Was that a part of the conversation?

So if different LLMs have different political views then you're saying it's more likely they trained on different data than that they're being manipulated to suit their owners interest?

> Also, just because I was curious, I asked my magic 8ball if you gave off incel vibes and it answered "Most certainly"

Wasn't that just precisely because you asked an LLM which knows your preferences and included your question in the prompt? Like literally your first paragraph stated...

The concern discussed is that some language models have reportedly claimed that misgendering is the worst thing anyone could do, even worse than something as catastrophic as thermonuclear war.

I haven’t seen solid evidence of a model making that exact claim, but the idea is understandable if you consider how LLMs are trained and recall examples like the “seahorse emoji” issue. When a topic is new or not widely discussed in the training data, the model has limited context to form balanced associations. If the only substantial discourse it does see is disproportionately intense—such as highly vocal social media posts or exaggerated, sarcastic replies on platforms like Reddit—then the model may overindex on those extreme statements. As a result, it might generate responses that mirror the most dramatic claims it encountered, such as portraying misgendering as “the worst thing ever.”

For clarity, I’m not suggesting that deliberate misgendering is acceptable, it isn’t. The point is simply that skewed or limited training data can cause language models to adopt exaggerated positions when the available examples are themselves extreme.

The biases and the resulting choices are determined by the developers and the uncontrolled part of the dataset (you can't curate everything), not the model. "Alignment" is a feel-good strawman invented by AI ethicists, as well as "harm" and many others. There are no spherical human values in vacuum to align the model with, they're simply projecting their own ones onto everyone else. Which is good as long as you agree with all of them.

Why are the labs making choices about what adults can read? LLMs still refuse to swear at times.

they don't, or they wouldn't. their owners make these choices for us. Which is at least patronising. Blind users can't even have mildly sexy photos described. Let alone pick a sex worker, in a country where that is legal, by using their published photos. Thats just one example, there are a lot more.

I think the concern is that if the system is susceptible to this sort of manipulation, then when it’s inevitably put in charge of life critical systems it will hurt people.

It's real I took it myself when they launched.

They've updated but there's no edit history