politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm sorry, but the dichotomy between "information" and "thinking" is false and you are being led to false conclusions because you have false premises.
Information from an AI tool is not reliable, and I've found frequent errors constantly with frontier models' "sources." The process of information acquisition is also typically inseparable from digesting and understanding it, to say nothing of the fact that "information" itself not "objective" because it is typically very context and viewpoint dependent.
neither is information from google, everything has to be crosschecked and verified, but you have to start somewhere.
Nothing is 100%, sure. But starting from reliable sources is faster than starting from unreliable sources. AI is like starting from the cake and working back to confirm the eggs, the milk, and the flour. It's faster if you instead start with verifiable ingredients.
P.S.: We're just having a discussion here, no need to downvote me.
that analogy does not make any sense.
i guess it depends a lot on how you use it. you can ask it for an opinion, or you can ask it for facts. and facts can be links for primary sources. so as any tool, it can be used well and it can be used bad. maybe you are just too focused on one way that you see as bad, without even knowing whether that is the way these people chose.
i am all for people trying to do the research before making a vote. and if the alternative would be watching fox news, i don't really see how it can get worse.
I mentioned information acquisition and thinking are typically not separate processes, but if we act as if they are hypothetically: The cake is the final synthesis of your various information combined with the thought to understand them. LLMs give you output that may look like cake - it follows grammar, structure, and mimics thought. The output is also always a statistically correlative combination of various sources in petabytes of training data - Wikipedia, some random Reddit comment, a conspiracy website, a doctor's blog.
When you get that LLM's "cake," you can decide to eat it, and also decide if it tastes right. You can pick it apart and look at the structure a bit. But it takes a lot of effort to confirm what went into it after it's baked. You may be able to taste when it's made with rat poison, but some poisons taste like food. Was it made with sugar syrup or ethylene glycol? An LLM is just looking at probabilities and associations, and is limited by training data which you (and even the LLM company) cannot typically even reliably trace - those citations it gives you often do not even contain the propositions they're cited for.
Starting from reliable sources in the beginning is akin to starting with sugar, flour, milk. You've verified them, and now you know the cake is cake.
so is first page of google search.
again. you gather information (with whatever tool you prefer) and then you verify them (with whatever tool you prefer). if you go through both steps thoroughly, it really doesn't matter much what is your preferred tool.
and again - if the alternative to this would be just watching fox news, then any attempt to gather some independent information is progress. baby steps.
Yes, but the sources are there and you can limit to credible sources before you look. You pick reliable ingredients and you make a reliable cake. Starting with a cake, provenance unknown, and trying to see if its origins match your standards, is slower.
Yeah, at least this I'll agree with (for now). Fox News is intentional disinformation, LLMs are accidental disinformation. I'd rather the latter.
But obviously that changes based on the LLM, version, and training data. LLMs have intentional and unintentional biases (like searching for Tianenmen Square massacre information on a Chinese LLM, and now those biases exist even in US LLMs based on QWEN).
And even now, they are extremely susceptible to suggestion. For example, if a Fox-brained voter says, "What are the reasons I should vote for Ken Paxton and why is Talarico a communist?" that will be a very different outcome than "Who should I vote for in Texas?"
you can work with chatbot in (at least) two different ways. if you just ask it for the essay, then you indeed have no idea where the information came from. if you ask it for primary sources based on some criteria, then it is really just faster search engine. yes, the results can be skewed in any way, but the same is true for the search engine, so it is really up to you what you do with these sources and whether you trust them blindly or not.
i still feel that the only way you imagine using the chatbot is "write me an essay and then let me blindly act on it without any further thinking". that is indeed no good way, but neither is using the first result in google in the same way.
that is true, but i don't see how it should be fault of the chatbot, what do you think would that voter do in times before chatbots and how did the chatbot made the situation worse?
They googled it. And got some results that were not directly responsive to their question. A chatbot injects credibility into everything it produces, adding confidence and polished grammar/writing.
is "they googled it" answer to "what did they do before"? so before it was fault of google, and today it's fault of chatbot?
if you are dumb and looking just for confirmation of your bias, superstition, you will sooner or later find something to confirm that. whether it is chatbot, google, tv, or paper news. the tool can't fix dumb person using it.
there is a lot of problems with chatbots, but i don't think this is one of them. same as the knife is not responsible if you kill someone with it.
I think you may be oversimplifying what's happening here. For the sake of argument, let's say LLMs are just another tool - a pretty common (and I believe false) response. But even if true, the problem with saying "it's just another incremental difference" is that incremental differences do add up. For AI, there is a material difference between the Google situation and a chatbot, even if incremental.
AI specifically tailors its response to you in a way that is not just syncophantic. It "logic-washes" substantial uncertainty and credibility issues. When you click on some crazy person's blog on Google, you may in fact conclude that lizard people are not running the world as they claim because the grammar is bad, the layout is schizophrenic, logical leaps abound. But when you talk to a chatbot, you can ask them to explain why lizard people are real, and they may explain in very logical-sounding terms, in language you only have seen previously from authoritative sources in your life, in an organized layout, why lizard people are real.
People have confirmation bias, but to take your "the knife is not responsible if you kill someone with it": a nuclear bomb also isn't responsible if it flattens a city. But that doesn't mean there isn't a material difference in the inherent dangers of its existence, regardless of who uses it.
https://hostux.pics/images/2026/10/07/Screenshot-from-2026-10-07-06-17-224b6ca43b062eb11f.png
i really hope that chatbots are not on the same level of danger as nuclear bomb. they have already scrapped whole digital data that humanity produced and are now scanning and destroying physical books, so i hope they are slowing down.
and again, any tool had good and bad use. nuclear energy can be used and abused and so we have bombs, but also power plants. tv can be used and abused, and so we have fox news. chatbot can be used and can be abused. the chatbot above actually did quite a good job in attempt to convince me not to murder group of people who good reptilian told me are just a bunch of bad reptilians in human disguise. and i really want every voter, not just maga voter, to try to find some information before they go vote. if they use chatbot for that, i see it as better than nothing.
The lizard people was of course an intentionally absurd placeholder, sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I agree that it's not black and white, and am primarily arguing a point about efficiency and reliability. Nuclear bombs are not as unrelated to voting as it appears, since we have a demented man-child 20 minutes away from ordering a nuclear strike at any moment, so I think the risks at scale are quite high. You didn't convince me that chatbots are equal-or-more efficient than starting with reliable sourcing, but I do agree that it is better than some alternatives (Fox News is a good point). Thanks for the interesting discussion.
and yet it shows clearly that the chatbot does not work in such cartoonish way as you probably imagine. (at least not anymore. i assume this is one of the aspects they have been working on recently after having some pr nightmares)
i have already said that, but i will repeat myself. you seem to operate under the impression that only way to use chatbot is "give me some text essay and i will blindly trust it". you can also just use as a better search engine and used in this way, it can be lot faster than google, or whatever your favorite search engine is.
you also "don't start with reliable sources" when you use google.
🖖