Using an LLM to offer concise summaries of the major platforms and ideas of candidates would be an ideal use of the technology …if there was any way to know that the LLM is being factual and accurate and relatively free of bias in what it produces. But we have no guarantees on this.
People seeking information on elections seems surprising in general. Voting based on who they hate more seems to be the norm.
First they surrendered their knowledge, then their thinking. What is left of them now?
A vote that counts 3.7 times more than mine.
That would be a really good cards against humanity card
Their bodies
When they asked Fox Entertainment News they just vote for Pedo/Nazis
Maybe this will at least shake some people that their stupid “team” doesn’t actually align with their values?
LMAO! We’re so fucked.
Everyone gets a puppy vs diarrhea forever
How come it’s all of the bad stuff and none of the cool stuff?
Capitalism.
They were doing this in the primary.
I was canvassing and a woman whipped out her phone and asked chatgpt which of the candidates most agreed with her. That’s who she said she’d vote for.
Too many people (including my boss) seem to think AI is a magic oracle that can replace the whole messy business of ever researching even the tiniest thing. It’s astonishing how many people were apparently just waiting for the first chance to give up on doing anything at all for themselves.
People used to ask Google and use the totally unbiased first result to take a test for this…
At this point they are asking whether to vote blue or red. Like how is it even a fucking question if you aren’t MAGA? Americans deserve the government they have.
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.
I also doubt ChatGPT is just going to say “vote Republican”.
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.
An LLM can parse all of them and tell you what their core values/goals are.
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.
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.
Or it will make shit up, as they’re known to do.
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.
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.
