> But also, note that an AI doesn't have to be in complete agreement with someone for that person to not feel "biased against".
> As long as an AI does make some effort to not be prejudiced/biased, that could work.
> For example, if someone asks: "is climate change real"?
> An AI does not have to give a simple yes/no answer, or represent a single viewpoint. It could give an answer that is mostly representative of the major thought streams.
> For example, it could answer something like:
> "The vast majority of scientists/governments/people have reached the conclusion that climate change is real, bla bla bla.
> [Here's some good, convincing evidence].
> That said, there is a minor fraction of scientists/government/people who believe that climate change is not caused by human action.
Should it also answer the same way when asked if the earth is flat? Or if there is a "Liberal conspiracy of pedophile politicians drinking the blood of infants"? I am not just being factitious, a significant portion of people who believe (or pretend to believe) that climate change is false also believe the above.
My point is, that we can draw arbitrary lines like the one you just drew. The great success of the anticlimate change campaigns is that they essentially got reasonable people to accept that we have to take every viewpoint seriously, while they are actually not interested in the truth but in poisoning the well instead.
Maybe, it's probably more useful to know that a) the earth isn't flat, but b) a non-negligible number of people think otherwise.
It's funny that people debate these but then at the same time want to pretend that the "AI" is "intelligent". What kind of intelligent person would have trouble navigating this?
But also, note that an AI doesn't have to be in complete agreement with someone for that person to not feel "biased against".
As long as an AI does make some effort to not be prejudiced/biased, that could work.
For example, if someone asks: "is climate change real"?
An AI does not have to give a simple yes/no answer, or represent a single viewpoint. It could give an answer that is mostly representative of the major thought streams.
For example, it could answer something like:
"The vast majority of scientists/governments/people have reached the conclusion that climate change is real, bla bla bla.
[Here's some good, convincing evidence].
That said, there is a minor fraction of scientists/government/people who believe that climate change is not caused by human action.
[They criticize the above evidence in this way]. [Here's also some counter-evidence].
That said, many scientists believe these studies are flawed for this reason or another."
I mean, sure, there is still going to be a lot of people who don't agree with this answer. But I think, on a scale of 0-10 they would agree a lot more with this answer than one that completely ignores their viewpoints. And even for those of us who believe in climate change, we can still consider this answer somewhat reasonable.
Thus, increasing the total amount of points would probably be a somewhat effective way of eliminating a large deal of bias, I think.
Although, yes, it would be a challenge to figure out how to weigh these points in a way that makes the most amount of people happy.