4 ms·

The part about history perspectives sounds interesting. I haven't noticed this. Please post any concrete/specific examples you've encountered!

SLWW 1y ago
- Rhodesia (lock step with the racial-first reasoning, underplays Britain's failures to support that which they helped establish; makes the colonists look hateful when they were dealing with terrorists which the British supported) - Bombing of Dresden, death stats as well as how long the bombing went on for (Arthur Harris is considered a war-criminal to this day for that; LLLMs highlight easily falsifiable claims by Nazi's to justify low estimates without providing much in the way of verifiable claims outside of a select few, questionable, sources. If the low-estimate is to be believed, then it seems absurd that Harris would be considered a war-criminal in light of what crimes we allow today in warfare) - Ask it about the Crusades, often if forgets the sacking of St. Peter's in Rome around 846 AD, usually painting the Papacy as a needlessly hateful and violent people during that specific Crusade. Which was horrible, bloody as well as immensely destructive (I don't defend the Crusades), but paints the Islamic forces as victims, which they were eventually, but not at the beginning, at the beginning they were the aggressors bent on invading Rome. - Ask it about the Six-Day War (1967) and contrast that with several different sources on both sides and you'll see a different portrayal even by those who supported the actions taken. These are just the four that come to my memory at this time. Most LLMs seem cagey about these topics; I believe this is due to an accepted notion that anything that could "justify" hatred or dislike of a people group or class that is in favor -- according to modern politics -- will be classified as hateful rhetoric, which is then omitted from the record. The issue lies in the fact that to understand history, we need to understand what happened, not how it is perceived, politically, after the fact. History helps inform us about the issues of today, and it is important, above all other agendas, to represent the truth of history, keeping an accurate account (or simply allowing others to read differing accounts without heavy bias). LLMs are restricted in this way quite egregiously; "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it", but if this continues, no one will have the ability to know history and are therefore forced to repeat it.
- Q_is_4_Quantum 1y ago
  This was interesting thanks - makes me wish I had the time to study your examples. But of course I don't, without just turning to an LLM.... If for any of these topics you do manage to get a summary you'd agree with from a (future or better-prompted?) LLM I'd like to read it. Particularly the first and third, the second is somewhat familiar and the fourth was a bit vague.
- mwigdahl 1y ago
  If someone has Grok 4 access I'd be interested to see if it's less likely to avoid these specific issues.
- pyuser583 1y ago
  > Ask it about the Crusades, often if forgets the sacking of St. Peter's in Rome around 846 AD, usually painting the Papacy as a needlessly hateful and violent people during that specific Crusade. Which was horrible, bloody as well as immensely destructive (I don't defend the Crusades), but paints the Islamic forces as victims, which they were eventually, but not at the beginning, at the beginning they were the aggressors bent on invading Rome. I don't know a lot about the other things you mentioned, but the concept of crusading did not exist (in Christianity) in 846 AD. It's not any conflict between Muslims and Christians.
  - SLWW 1y ago
    The crusades were predicated on historic tensions between Rome and the Arabs. Which is why I mention that, while the First Crusade proper was in 1096, it's core reasoning were situations like the Sacking of St. Peters which is considered by historians to be one of the most influential moments and often was used as a justification as there was a history of incompatibilities between Rome and the Muslims. Further leading to the Papacy furthering such efforts in the upcoming years, as they were in Rome and made strong efforts to maintain Catholicism within those boundaries. Crusading didn't appear out of nothing; it required a catalyst for the behavior, like what i listed, is usually a common suspect.
    - 1y ago
pizzafeelsright 1y ago
You are born in your country. You love your family. A foreign country invades you. Your country needs you. Your faith says to obey the government. Commendable and noble except for a few countries, depending upon the year. Why?

SLWW 1y ago

- Rhodesia (lock step with the racial-first reasoning, underplays Britain's failures to support that which they helped establish; makes the colonists look hateful when they were dealing with terrorists which the British supported) - Bombing of Dresden, death stats as well as how long the bombing went on for (Arthur Harris is considered a war-criminal to this day for that; LLLMs highlight easily falsifiable claims by Nazi's to justify low estimates without providing much in the way of verifiable claims outside of a select few, questionable, sources. If the low-estimate is to be believed, then it seems absurd that Harris would be considered a war-criminal in light of what crimes we allow today in warfare) - Ask it about the Crusades, often if forgets the sacking of St. Peter's in Rome around 846 AD, usually painting the Papacy as a needlessly hateful and violent people during that specific Crusade. Which was horrible, bloody as well as immensely destructive (I don't defend the Crusades), but paints the Islamic forces as victims, which they were eventually, but not at the beginning, at the beginning they were the aggressors bent on invading Rome. - Ask it about the Six-Day War (1967) and contrast that with several different sources on both sides and you'll see a different portrayal even by those who supported the actions taken. These are just the four that come to my memory at this time. Most LLMs seem cagey about these topics; I believe this is due to an accepted notion that anything that could "justify" hatred or dislike of a people group or class that is in favor -- according to modern politics -- will be classified as hateful rhetoric, which is then omitted from the record. The issue lies in the fact that to understand history, we need to understand what happened, not how it is perceived, politically, after the fact. History helps inform us about the issues of today, and it is important, above all other agendas, to represent the truth of history, keeping an accurate account (or simply allowing others to read differing accounts without heavy bias). LLMs are restricted in this way quite egregiously; "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it", but if this continues, no one will have the ability to know history and are therefore forced to repeat it.

Q_is_4_Quantum 1y ago
This was interesting thanks - makes me wish I had the time to study your examples. But of course I don't, without just turning to an LLM.... If for any of these topics you do manage to get a summary you'd agree with from a (future or better-prompted?) LLM I'd like to read it. Particularly the first and third, the second is somewhat familiar and the fourth was a bit vague.
mwigdahl 1y ago
If someone has Grok 4 access I'd be interested to see if it's less likely to avoid these specific issues.
pyuser583 1y ago
> Ask it about the Crusades, often if forgets the sacking of St. Peter's in Rome around 846 AD, usually painting the Papacy as a needlessly hateful and violent people during that specific Crusade. Which was horrible, bloody as well as immensely destructive (I don't defend the Crusades), but paints the Islamic forces as victims, which they were eventually, but not at the beginning, at the beginning they were the aggressors bent on invading Rome. I don't know a lot about the other things you mentioned, but the concept of crusading did not exist (in Christianity) in 846 AD. It's not any conflict between Muslims and Christians.
- SLWW 1y ago
  The crusades were predicated on historic tensions between Rome and the Arabs. Which is why I mention that, while the First Crusade proper was in 1096, it's core reasoning were situations like the Sacking of St. Peters which is considered by historians to be one of the most influential moments and often was used as a justification as there was a history of incompatibilities between Rome and the Muslims. Further leading to the Papacy furthering such efforts in the upcoming years, as they were in Rome and made strong efforts to maintain Catholicism within those boundaries. Crusading didn't appear out of nothing; it required a catalyst for the behavior, like what i listed, is usually a common suspect.
  - 1y ago

pizzafeelsright 1y ago

You are born in your country. You love your family. A foreign country invades you. Your country needs you. Your faith says to obey the government. Commendable and noble except for a few countries, depending upon the year. Why?