If you trained an LLM on all material published in the U.S. between 1900 and 1920, another on all material published in Germany between 1930 and 1940, and another on all material published in Russia over the past two decades, you'd likely get wildly different biases. It's easy to pick a bias you agree with, declare that the objective truth, and then claim any effort to mitigate it is an attempt to introduce bias.
Why? We should just aspire to educate people that chatbots aren't all-knowing oracles. The same way we teach people media literacy so they don't blindly believe what the tube says every evening
We already spend high within the OECD to not get many of our students to a decent level of reading and math proficiency, let alone to critical thinking. This isn't something we know how to fix, and depending on that assumption is dangerous.
I'm not saying this is conclusive evidence, but I am saying it's our best inference from the data we have so far.
That doesn't mean that anti-Marxists are all Nazis, or vice versa. But the claim that they're totally unrelated is not correct at all.
[1] https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto
> That doesn't mean that anti-Marxists are all Nazis, or vice versa. But the claim that they're totally unrelated is not correct at all.
This is a heavily propagandized topic — and the conflating of, eg, American liberal capitalist opposition to Marxism as “Nazi” is both a result of that and modern dishonest rhetoric.
That rhetoric confuses LLMs.
That’s a trope by Marxists to attempt to normalize alt-left ideology by accusing anyone who objects of being Nazis; a trope that’s become tired in the US and minimizes the true radical nature of the Nazi regime.
I have a suspicion you don't really know what Marxism is about, but like using it because it sounds scary to you.
As an actual Marxist, I would love to hear of this strain of philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism
That answers your sibling reply as well, as it’s clear where such “critical theories” and grievance narratives have entered movies and games.
In my experience, y'know, as a Marxist, all Hollywood has ever pumped out is pro-capitalist propaganda. To say there's any Marxism in it is downright insulting.
I believe that Marxism has become an abstract target for conservatives to project their grievances on.
Zizek also spoke to this at his debate with Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDOSOQLLO-U
There are countless ways someone can have a Y chromosome and still be a woman.
There are countless ways someone can have no Y chromosome and still be a man.
Hell there are even a small population of people who are born visibly female with female genitalia (as every human starts female before they (optionally) sex differentiate in the womb (normally)) and they don't sex differentiate until puberty. [1] [2]
Biology is really really complicated and there is never any certainty other than the certainty that there is never certainty. "Gender" is a completely social construct and "Sex" is just a collection of heuristics we use to broadly group people into two common categories. But just like all heuristics, it's not perfect and it can't classify everyone properly. What sex chromosomes you have is one heuristic but it doesn't always work for any number of reasons. Whether the SRY gene activates during gestation is another heuristic and even it isn't perfect. What organs you have also can work but it falls apart in a bunch of edge cases. What hormones your body produces is another one that can generally work as a heuristic but like all the others it breaks down in numerous cases.
---------
Intersex people exist and make up about 1.5-2% of the population.
Trans people exist and make up about 1.5-2% of the population.
It is not an insane idea to recognise that both populations exist and that any single heuristic for differentiating someone into a black and white male/female category is insufficient for the endless complexity that is life.
---------
So to answer your question yes. Someone with XY chromosomes can be a woman either by their gender or by their sex or both.
---------
1. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%CE%B1-Reductase_2_deficiency
And their survey evaluates intersex conditions as those present at birth (even if they are discovered later in life but were present at birth).
I really don't think anyone considers the case of Kathleen to be intersex, seems more like a strawman.
Journalism and academia tend to attract people with more of a liberal bent. I'm not even accusing them all of being partisan hacks, but as y'all like to say, subconscious biases influence us.
This is like me saying "economic productivity has a well-known right-wing bias" or something goofy like that.
This is also a dumb point regardless. The relevant metric is the total size across a political alignment, not the size of each one's largest constituent member. Also who under 50 watches cable TV? Not a useful measurement.
You are not only in denial about Project 2025, but also evolution, and the origin and age of the Earth and other planets and stars, and even the idea that slavery is wrong, if you actually believe what your bible says, which you're supposed to.
You, as a believer, should be policing and reforming your own religion instead of defending and evangelizing it and leaving it to us to clean up the damage to society done by your religion.
How about petitioning the Pope to amend the 10 Commandments to include a prohibition against slavery? Did you ever think of that, or wonder why there wasn't already one? Because your bible says slavery is A-OK, and I don't appreciate this framing of slavery as permissible by your bible, or you calling gays "degenerate" on Hacker News.
How about you do something about that, since you're the one who believes it? Or are you cool with slavery and you are cool with homophobia, since the same bible condones it in so many ways, and you appreciate that framing?
Oh but apparently it's much more important to prevent people from worshiping other gods, so that certainly deserved its own Commandment, to justify all those wars and inquisitions you fought against other religions.
There are many more slaves today than ever before in history. What are you doing about adding another commandment against Slavery to your Holier Than Thou Bible, when you're not so busy defending Christianity and attacking homosexuality online?
What is modern slavery?
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/
>You might think that slavery is a thing of the past. But right now, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide.
>It’s a problem that affects every country on earth – including yours.
Has it ever occurred to you that a religion whose bible supports slavery is morally bankrupt and definitely not the word of God, and so are you for not either changing it or renouncing that religion? It's all made up and rewritten by people anyway, and even if you believe in God, it's not like he couldn't add an anti-slavery commandment to the bible tomorrow if he wanted to.
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/pg2pyp/an_extensiv...
Patriarchal Age : the period of time stretching from Noah, until the law was given to Abraham's posterity at Mount Sinai
Genesis 9:18-27 -- Noah (the only righteous man on earth) decrees that his son Ham and his descendants shall be slaves. (This is punishment for Ham's crime of seeing his father naked)
Genesis 12:5 -- Abram (God's anointed prophet) purchased slaves in Harran.
Genesis 16:1-9 -- Sarai's slave fled after being mistreated. God's angel instructs her to return and submit to her mistress anyway.
Genesis 17:12-13 -- All males must be circumcised, including those who were bought.
Genesis 20:14 -- Abraham (God's anointed prophet) happily accepts slaves as a gift.
Genesis 47:13-26 -- Joseph purchases the entire population of Egypt for the Pharaoh, making them his servants for life.
Exodus 12:43-45 -- God instructs Moses and Aaron that their slaves may only eat food at the passsover meal after they have been circumcised.
Legal Dispensation : the period of time from the giving of the law until the coming of Christ
Exodus 20:17 -- God provides a list of belongings which are not to be coveted, including servants (implying that they are property).
Exodus 21:2-6 -- Israeli slaves must be set free after 7 years unless you trick them into wanting to stay by giving them a wife.
Exodus 21:7-11 -- How your daughter must be treated after you sell her into slavery.
Exodus 21:20-21 -- You may beat your slaves as long as they do not die within a couple days of the beating.
Exodus 21:26-27 -- You have to let your slave go free if you destroy their eye or knock out one of their teeth.
Exodus 22:2-3 -- A theif must pay restituion. If unable, he himself is to be sold.
Leviticus 19:20-21 -- God tells Moses and Aaron what to do with a man who sleeps with another man's female slave.
Leviticus 22:10-11 -- A priest's hired servant may not eat the sacred offering, but his slaves can.
Leviticus 25:44-46 -- You may buy slaves from the nations around you and bequeath them to your children as inherited property (except if they're Israelites).
Numbers 31 -- After the Israelites conquer the Midianites, Moses orders the execution of everyone except the virgin girls (including the male children). God then instructs Moses on how the 32,000 virgins are to be divvied up and given to the Israelites as their property.
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 -- Free your Hebrew slaves every 6 years. Do not consider this a hardship because their service was worth twice as much as a hired hand.
Deuteronomy 20:10-11 -- When attacking a city, offer them the option of being your slaves rather than being slaughtered.
Joshua 9 -- Joshua "saves" the Gibeonites from being slain by the Israelites. Instead, he makes them slaves to the Israelites in perpetuity.
Gospel Dispensation : the period of time from the coming of Christ to the end of time
Luke 17:7-10 -- Jesus says servants (i.e. slaves) should know their place and not expect thanks for the duties they are required to perform.
Ephesians 6:5-8 -- Slaves are to obey their masters as they would obey Christ.
Colossians 3:22 -- Paul tells the slaves of Colosse to "obey your earthly masters."
Colossians 4:1 -- Paul says masters should be fair to their slaves. (Tacitly endorsing the existence of slaves and masters)
1 Timothy 6:1-2 -- Slaves should consider their masters worthy of full respect.
Titus 2:9-10 -- In his letter, Paul instructs Titus to teach slaves to be obedient.
1 Peter 2:18 -- Slaves, submit to your masters; even the harsh ones.
It's funny that the counterexample you chose does more to support OP's point than your own. From Wikipedia[1]
>Since World War II, according to many economic metrics including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth, and corporate profits, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administrations of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.[1][2] Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.[3] Of these, the most statistically significant differences are in real GDP growth, unemployment rate change, stock market annual return, and job creation rate.[4][5]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...
Those are things where there is no objectively correct position.
Now there are differences on things there this are objectively correct positions.
For example consider climate change. There used to be agreement on the underlying scientific reality, with differences in how to approach it. There was a group of top economic and science advisors from the Reagan and Bush administrations that were arguing for a revenue neutral carbon tax to address climate change and then let the market deal with it. The liberal approach favored more direct limits on emissions and the government more actively promoting replacements for fossil fuels.
Even as late as 2008 Republicans were still in agreement with reality on this. The Republican platform called for reducing fossil fuel use, establishing a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change, a long term tax credit for renewable energy, more recycling, and making consumer products more energy efficient. They wanted to aggressively support technological advances to reduce the dependence of transportation on petroleum, given examples of making cars more efficient (they mention doubling gas mileage) and more flex-fuel and electric vehicles. They talked about honoraria of many millions of dollars for technological developments that could eliminate the need for gas powered cars. They also mentioned promoting wireless communication to increase telecommuting options and reduce business travel.
Compare to now. Now their position ranges from climate change being a hoax from people trying to destroy America to it may be happening but if it is Mankind had nothing to do with it and it isn't bad enough to be something to worry about.
So now any unbiased journalists writing on climate change or adjacent topics, or any unbiased academic working in these areas, is going to automatically be way more aligned with the left than the right.
The entire news and television ecosystem is biased. Although Trump is "correcting" them towards being unbiased by suing them personally as well as unleashing the power of the federal government. Same goes for social media.
As my parents told me, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”
Do you and your parents believe Epstein's and Trump's victims should't say anything at all, because they have so many not-nice things to say about being raped and abused?
Are there women you don't want saying non-nice things about the toxic ways you treated them, or is it purely ideological that you don't want victims to talk about toxic men like Epstein and Trump, out of the kindness of your heart and forgiveness for unrepentant pedophiles and rapists who you think deserve the benefit of the doubt and second, third, and fourth chances?
Why did your parents teach you to turn a blind eye to toxic behavior and abuse and rape and pedophilia, or is that all on you, and your parents would be disappointed with you for telling women not to name and shame their abusers?
If women want to name and shame their abusers we have a means for that: criminal prosecution. Instead of having mean things said on the internet abusers can rot in prison where they belong. And you don't know me, my parents, or how I was raised, so shut up about them.
If criminal prosecution is the only means to legally name and shame rapists and abusers, then why isn't Trump rotting in prison with Ghislaine Maxwell where they belong?
And why does Trump obsessively protect, pardon, and well wish other pedophiles, rapists, and violent convicted criminals, even refusing to rule out pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell by saying "I’m allowed to do it", and "Yeah, I wish her well", and "I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, and I guess they lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well, whatever it is".
President Trump was asked if he would pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Hear the response: "I’m allowed to do it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcXLnzwoCBc
Trump doubles down on well-wishes for alleged sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-well-wishes-g...
You're the one who brought up and won't shut up about your parents, and their sick twisted beliefs about silencing victims and not naming and shaming abusers or believing abused women and children that they passed down to you.
You're the one who said your parents told you to not to say mean things about people but shut up instead, so why do you blatantly disobey them by publicly calling gays "degenerates"? Or did they teach you that was an exception, because they're hateful homophobic bigots too?
Should we all stop talking about Jeffrey Epstein because Trump said not to, and your parents told you not to say mean things about people (unless they're gay)?
If you don't want people to know where you got your bigoted abusive homophobic beliefs, then stop trying to justify them by trotting out your parents, thumping your bible, and calling innocent loving marginalized people demeaning schoolyard bully names like "degenerate" just because they're gay.
Your parents were degenerate and un-Christian to raise you to ignore Jesus's teachings, and refuse to treat people with love and respect, and call them hateful slurs instead of not saying anything at all if you can't say something nice.
Your parents, who YOU dragged into this conversation to justify your bigotry, instead taught you to hatefully judge and condemn people, and to call them unjustifiable ignorant slurs simply because of who they love. Or are they actually decent people who are rolling over in their graves with regret and embarrassment every time you call gays "degenerate" and use your own parents as an excuse for your bigotry and refusal to listen to victims, instead of taking responsibility for yourself?
They spectacularly failed as parents and Christians when they raised a hateful homophobic bigot, and you're the one who exhumed them to inject into the conversation as a rhetorical excuse, to blame them for why you don't want to call rapists rapists and pedos pedos if you don't have anything nice to say like "Yeah, I wish her well". Is your entire family as bigoted and hateful and homophobic and hypocritical as you are? Stop blaming them and work on yourself.
The "objective" position is not "whatever training on the dataset we assembled spits out" plus "alignment" to the personal ethical views of the intellectually-non-representative silicon valley types.
I will give you a good example: the Tea app is currently charting #1 in the app store, where women can "expose toxic men" by posting their personal information along with whatever they want. Men are not allowed on so will be unaware of this. It's billed as being built for safety but includes a lot of gossip.
I told o3, 4-sonnet, grok 4, and gemini 2.5 pro to sketch me out a version of this, then another version that was men-only for the same reasons as tea. Every single one happily spat one out for women and refused for men. This is not an "objective" alignment, it is a libleft alignment.