"it's not for me to say directly, but here are some of the facts..."
Even this is challenging because we now live in a political environment with sides so polarized and isolated from each other that each side has its own set of facts, and they are often contradictory.
The founders of the hypothetical terrorist vegan organization called "Blow Up Meat Packing Plants and Everyone Inside" has a lot to like about your proposal.
How do you see the incentives playing out in your multi-round game-theory battle for information control?
If it's wrong about something that 95+ percent of people are wrong about, that's mildly annoying but understandable.
If it picks sides on something that half of people are wrong about, that's less understandable of an error. Even if by chance it happens to pick the side that I know is right.
Then, how do you choose how many facts to present?
ChatGPT, what causes it to rain?
ChatGPT: Well, some people say that air temperature and pressure changes cause existing moisture in the air to condense and form liquid water, which falls to the earth. Other people say it is caused by a supernatural deity to bring good crops for the harvest. Others say it’s a unicorn who lives in the sky, and rain is its tears. Still others say Joe Biden causes it to rain in order to ruin Conservative’s weddings. Others think rain is generated by chemicals sprayed in the atmosphere by passenger jets. There’s not a broad consensus, and nobody really knows for sure!
Comments
Even this is challenging because we now live in a political environment with sides so polarized and isolated from each other that each side has its own set of facts, and they are often contradictory.
Which set of “facts” should the LLM present?
Why only one?
"Group A says this is true, group B says that is true, there does not appear to be a broad consensus, here are some examples of each."
The founders of the hypothetical terrorist vegan organization called "Blow Up Meat Packing Plants and Everyone Inside" has a lot to like about your proposal.
How do you see the incentives playing out in your multi-round game-theory battle for information control?
If it's wrong about something that 95+ percent of people are wrong about, that's mildly annoying but understandable.
If it picks sides on something that half of people are wrong about, that's less understandable of an error. Even if by chance it happens to pick the side that I know is right.
Then, how do you choose how many facts to present?
ChatGPT, what causes it to rain?
ChatGPT: Well, some people say that air temperature and pressure changes cause existing moisture in the air to condense and form liquid water, which falls to the earth. Other people say it is caused by a supernatural deity to bring good crops for the harvest. Others say it’s a unicorn who lives in the sky, and rain is its tears. Still others say Joe Biden causes it to rain in order to ruin Conservative’s weddings. Others think rain is generated by chemicals sprayed in the atmosphere by passenger jets. There’s not a broad consensus, and nobody really knows for sure!