I have noticed a frustrating pattern and I want to know if anyone else is experiencing it. When I ask models like ChatGPT or Gemini about topics with scientific consensus (such as climate change, vaccine efficacy, or the harms of fracking), the answers are extremely ambiguous. They use phrases like “some argue…”, “it is a complex issue…”, “there are various positions…”, treating scientific facts as if they were debatable political opinions. It’s like asking “Is the Earth flat?” and having them reply: “There are those who say it is round and others who say it is flat, the truth depends on your perspective.” However, if I ask the same questions to models developed in other countries (outside the Silicon Valley ecosystem), the answers are direct, evidence-based, and straightforward. It’s not that they are “left-wing,” it’s just that they present reality as the data has proven it. My hypothesis: I think US companies prioritize not being sued or boycotted by any political group over telling the truth. They are so afraid of being accused of “bias” that they end up validating misinformation by giving the same weight to a proven fact as to a lie. This is dangerous. If my family uses these tools and the AI tells them that climate change is “an open debate,” ignorance is reinforced. Neutrality should not apply to facts. submitted by /u/Weak_Salary_7122
Originally posted by u/Weak_Salary_7122 on r/ArtificialInteligence