Rob Greenlee asks whether AI could settle disputes in a polarized world, and warns that any algorithm deciding truth would embed its creators' political agendas. An AI arbiter risks swaying elections and public opinion by treating subjective human constructs as objective fact.
How do we break that tie? Or how do we break that division to say, okay, you have this opinion, this other person has this opinion, who's gonna say, well, you're wrong and you're wrong, or you're right and you're wrong, right? And is it possible that AI could do that for us, especially AGI, the superintelligence? My concern is that are we going to see AI have bias? Now, granted, what is bias? I guess, what is it? Fairness? Is it a lack of fairness? Is it a lack of truthfulness? Is it a lack of inclusivity? It's essentially putting your thumb on the scale and saying, what's true is this over here. And that's a human construct based on our own internal bias and our own wish for something to be true. Maybe there's an agenda there. Maybe there's a— I hate to say, but there's a political campaign that needs to be swayed one way or the other, and the creator of the AI, they have a particular bias where they want one candidate to win.
Future-proofing with Delphi AI/Human clones: your podcast as a personal LLM | New Media Show
How sports reveal what AI spectacle gets wrong #Technology #Sports #Commentary
