politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Completely legitimate use case.
Your candidates all have websites. An LLM can parse all of them and tell you what their core values/goals are.
If any align with yours, look at them more closely and see if they've got your vote.
....no. That's not how any of this works.
If you think it's a good idea to ask AI how to vote, please don't vote at all.
We don't need you handing your vote to a robot ... or to the techno-fascist prick holding the robot's leash.
Dead govt theory
Bots voting for bots
And the LLMs trained and operated by companies whose leaders are unscrupulous fascists, and who pander to Trump for the sake of favors. It's naive to assume they're giving unbiased answers.
This isn't even theoretical.
Remember when Grok was defensively insisting Musk was a champion piss drinker whose survival was more important than the rest of humanity combined?
True, but it's also naive to hope people are not going to use it for questions like that. At least they're not asking Grok (which some people are just likely also doing).
I also doubt ChatGPT is just going to say "vote Republican". Maybe I'll just try later, just out of curiosity.
Propaganda is usually far more subtle than that. You can gently color the way the issues are framed, choose what to present as the important questions and deciding factors, omit to mention certain evidence or arguments, describe some candidates in appealing terms and others less appealingly, etc. All it needs to do is nudge some of the questioners a little to the right, not overtly or dramatically, but just enough to tip the votes statistically just a little bit towards the Republicans.
Or it will make shit up, as they're known to do. Fuck off with this shit. Outsourcing your own thinking is stupid, cowardly, and deadly for everybody.
You can ask the ai for the source and the relevant quote than verify if it halucinate or not , still faster than using traditional ways
Or you could just look it up first and skip the whole ‘might be made up slop’ bit.
Sometimes you need to find very specific details that would take a lot more time to find manually by browsing dozens of articles
And those details are fake. Or not. Who’s to say?
There is where verification comes , it not like the manual traditional way of searching can't give me fake infos.
The stated case for AI here is to save time, but to save time you must either trust the results, or spend more time than the non-AI path to verify (because now you're doing the reading and verifying you would have done in the first place; and if AI is wrong or hallucinated, you may have just wasted a lot of time).
AI is definitionally only faster when its results are not verified and are just trusted.
If you're thinking, "Well, I wouldn't verify everything, just the things that may be wrong or important," then you've already outsourced credibility to not just AI, but also your gut feelings. The most important things you can learn are the things that your feelings are wrong about.
That's kind of the whole problem with AI in every domain: it can save you time if you let it churn out unchecked garbage, but if you check its outputs it won't save you time and you'd have been better doing the work yourself. It's still not clear whether there's any room for actual value in between these.
Where I've been coming to is, there's value when you only need to 80/20 something AND there is no requirement that the output is checked. The main situation for that is programming assistance with local-run applications that do not require hardware security.
For example, there's an open source local-run server program that I use to play an abandoned service game entirely on my device now (no exposure to the internet), and it was heavily written by Claude. I have no issue with that. There's no issue with security holes because it's not exposed to the internet, and no issues with it hallucinating, because those are solvable bugs that come out during user testing. It did provide functional value because you could slot-machine instruct it to solve a problem and you can easily see if the problem is solved, and still save time.
But nobody is really boxing it in based on the actual limitations of what it can do and its flaws, so yeah, we're here with people blind to its faults and treating it as if it were a sentient assistant and not the probability matrix calculator that it is.
I think it still save time because like I said the traditional way also require verification and critical thinking . If a person use the AI without critical thinking yes it bad but it is still on that person not the tool.
It doesn't really matter whose fault it is, it's going to harm everyone
Or you could just figure out what your own damn opinion is yourself and not have to rely on an unthinking chatbot to think for you.
Please learn to read. I never said you should use it to form opinions , I said you can use it to get the details then verfiy if they are factual and build your own opinion based on the information.
gathering information and thinking are two different things. see, i just gave you information, now all you have to do is think about it for a bit.
I'm sorry, but the dichotomy between "information" and "thinking" is false and you are being led to false conclusions because you have false premises.
Information from an AI tool is not reliable, and I've found frequent errors constantly with frontier models' "sources." The process of information acquisition is also typically inseparable from digesting and understanding it, to say nothing of the fact that "information" itself not "objective" because it is typically very context and viewpoint dependent.
That's why there was step 2 in that advice, which you conviniently ignored in order to get outraged.
Which is more efficient?
"Let software tell me what I should do, then verify for myself whether I should do it."
Or:
"Verify for myself what I should do."
PLEASE stop outsourcing your own thinking.
The vast majority of people who do step one won't do step two, and if step two is necessary, which it is, then step one is pointless and can be skipped.
no, it can't be skipped. because you can't verify information you haven't gathered.
and any information gathered by another means have to be verified as well, so step two is always necessary.
I'm gonna push back on this in that you have no idea how or what structural biases are being baked into these. They also are intentionally built to give a sense of neutrality to things that aren't neutral.
Also, it's well known at this point that marketers are focusing on slip websites which can get agree gated into ml model training data sets. The new meta is to get your product into the llm and get the llm to recommend you.
Yeah, there are implicit and explicit biases at every stage of these models. The training data they collect, how they clean and use their training data, the actual training methodology, the prompts to literally alter the final output.
That's not to mention the main things LLM aren't aware of, which is who are you as a person. An LLM doesn't know nor can it understand your life experiences and how that shapes your opinions on who is best to represent you. Handing over cognition like this is basically throwing away your vote as you've forfeited one of the major methods you have to influence your government.