Comment by crnkofe

Isn't this what Elon Musk has unironically claimed he is doing with grokipedia?

This is based on the assumption of facts existing.

There are many studies, but each can be wrong and they can collectively show a bias. Even things of which are the most non-political of facts can have very strong biases. Look at the Millikan measurement of the electron and how in created confirmation bias and an anchoring effect on some property that has absolutely no real world significance to the things people are tribalistic about (aka, no political relevance). Now imagine the same applied to fields like economics or psychology which do have massive legal/political implications.

For a different example, ask the question if X committed crime Y. There are cases where they weren't found guilty but it is reasonable to assume they did. But being found guilty doesn't make it a fact either, as some people are wrongly convicted. Some eventually are overturned, but even if it isn't, it still isn't a fact they committed a crime.

Then there is the simple ambiguity of statements. Language generally can't support facts. It is why legalize, and programming code, and math's are effectively their own languages. For a simple example, consider the Betrand paradox(1).

>Consider an equilateral triangle that is inscribed in a circle. Suppose a chord of the circle is chosen at random. What is the probability that the chord is longer than a side of the triangle?

Is the answer 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4? Well, it is all three at once, depending upon what you meant by random. Now, imagine how this impacts things like research studies, where the randomness is much harder to quantify and there is constant pressure to p hack a result.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)

Possibly, but is an LLM is capable of this?