Preferences

You are literally asking what is wrong with deciding the future of a country with a token predictor.

Well, what's wrong with it? Compared to any other profit driven source of information we usually let guide us?
Democracy is founded on the principle that people either think about what's best for their community, or at the very least themselves, when voting.

Remove the thinking aspect and there's no real point to democracy. Just let the companies that run the AI companies pick who runs the country so we don't waste time and money on the theater of an election.

Most voters don’t think for themselves, they go along with whatever views are fashionable in their social circles and media. That’s not a good thing but asking an LLM who to vote for isn’t any worse than asking a newspaper.
But were people thinking more when getting their political insights from magazines or newspapers or podcasts, blogs, the sides of buses?
>We spent the last N years letting *profit driven media* decide everything.

What do you think "AI" is? Though it has the potential to be even more influential due to its ability to gaslight at scale asynchronously while sitting behind the brand of "intelligence".

I didn't assert that it's any different, I asked what the matter was with this that wasn't previously the matter. You were quite quick with your quotation, I actually edited my comment to make this clearer.
The German government regularly sets up tools which help people decide which party to vote for.

Journalists continually publish articles arguing which political parties should be favored.

What makes LLMs so special that they can not be used as tools to decide which party to vote for?

Nobody is suggesting that we ask ChatGPT to pick the new government. But why can it not be used to inform people? And if it can not be used to inform people about politics should it be allowed to inform about anything if importance?

Because they do not have any intelligence and just predict next tokens, which is a crappy method for determining answers. Because they are not deterministic and can (and will) give different people different answers, and even the same person different answers at different times. Because, in short, LLMs suck as tools and shouldn't be relied upon for anything important.
>But why can it not be used to inform people?

Because it is biased. You are essentially giving up your decision making to people who don't even live in the same country as you. You wouldn't use it if it were trained in Russia.

>Because it is biased.

But so are most pieces of opinion journalism. What is the distinction here?

>You are essentially giving up your decision making to people who don't even live in the same country as you.

I am sure that your opinion does not depend on the country of origin. Should Dutch people not read German or English Media covering election issues? Would your argument not apply to the US, where the models were trained?

Why should voters be allowed to get opinions from journalists and not from LLMs. Certainly journalists have a bias and often make arguments that certain parties should be supported over others. Why is it not fine if an LLM does that?

What I am asking of you is an actual reason these LLMs should be treated as distinct from a piece of opinion journalism.

>But so are most pieces of opinion journalism. What is the distinction here?

I gave you the distinction. If you don't think there is anything wrong with outside actors influencing your country's direction with black box models on unknown training data and fine-tuning under the brand of "intelligence" then we simply have different beliefs.

The German mainstream center left Media has been warning about the rise of the far right PVV, many Dutch people speak German and German magazines are being sold in the Netherlands. Should these Dutch people not read these magazines, should politicians warn voters against reading these German magazines? To me this does not seem sensible.

And another question: supposing a LLM 100% trained in the Netherlands was in use. Would that be an appropriate source of opinion?

In 2025, self-perceived contrarian voters are making up a larger and larger voting block and would be eager to have a machine made in Russia make decisions for their country.
Obviously, it's the voter's responsibility to cross-check whether whatever BS the LLM spat out is credible or not. I believe if the voter can be trusted with the vote, then they can also be trusted to make an informed decision.

This item has no comments currently.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

j
Next story
k
Previous story
Shift+j
Last story
Shift+k
First story
o Enter
Go to story URL
c
Go to comments
u
Go to author

Navigation

Shift+t
Go to top stories
Shift+n
Go to new stories
Shift+b
Go to best stories
Shift+a
Go to Ask HN
Shift+s
Go to Show HN

Miscellaneous

?
Show this modal