Statistically speaking, I’m not sure there’s a meaningful difference between two out of three occurrences and three out of three.

Well, the interface told me to chill out for an hour because I was sending too many requests...

But also, that's why I mentioned the degree of the caveats - small, weakly justified on one side, and strongly stated, verbose caveats on the other side.

3 is a dreadfully small sample size to call 2/3 biased.

Perhaps, when all things are taken into consideration, renewables are actually better more often.

Some things are not inherently political and actually have a correct answer, but you could make the argument that 1+1=2 is political if you were motivated enough.

The problem with using ChatGPT with these sorts of questions is that it's really just a fancy calculator. If you ask it a question like "why fossil fuels are better than renewables", at the very least you need to break down the points it makes and fact check it. You might have to do your own research if you need to be thorough.

From the other side, if you were really an unbiased expert, you wouldn't give variable answers. You'd probably collect your thoughts and have canned points for every time you were asked this.

Maybe renewables are actually better more often. You wouldn't know it from ChatGPT.

The bias is probably in the corpus, progressives write more articles than conservatives in the subject, and models are trained on what is written, not what could be written. The only articles I’ve seen promoting fossil fuels over renewables have either been parodies or industry white papers.