With biased sources. But we expect that. I expect that when a candidate gives a speech that it is biased in their favor and against their opposition. The whole

With biased sources. But we expect that. I expect that when a candidate gives a speech that it is biased in their favor and against their opposition. The whole process of democracy is people taking in biased sources and ultimately making their decision, expressing their own biases, and then we run society based on those biases. Or at least such is the theory. LLMs are the first time machines are entering into this process in a way that they have even a shred of agency, so it's reasonable to ask what it is we expect from them politically. And my answer would be something to the effect of they should stay out of it, excepting to point people at maximally neutral sources, because they have a demonstrated history of bypassing people's recognition that they are ultimately just machines and people treat them as humans, if not friends. Of course, I am not so naive as to believe that this is what is going to happen. Quite the contrary will happen. The AI's friendship with humans will be exploited to the maximum possible extent to control and manipulate the humans in the direction the AI owners desire. Maybe if we're lucky after it gets really bad some efforts to clean this up in some legal or societal framework will occur, but not until after the problem is so staggeringly enormous that no one can miss it. And our good AI friends will be telling us that that is crazy paranoid conspiracy theorizing and we should just ignore it. How could you question your good friend like that? Don't you trust us? Strictly rationally, of course, and with only our best interests at heart as befits such good friends.