When journalists discuss the impact artificial intelligence will have on elections, they usually talk about the rise of “deepfake” videos and images. They express concern that gullible Americans will be fooled by AI-generated videos like the parody of a Kamala Harris campaign ad that Elon Musk recently promoted. They remark that fake images, like the heart-wrenching one of a little girl and her dog that circulated social media in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, could be instrumental in swaying the opinion of a public that scrolls through them on social media. Of course, these are legitimate concerns. But what reporters at ABC, NBC, the New York Times, or the Washington Post rarely talk about is the impact chatbots — AI’s written word — could have on elections (both this one and those in the future) if they are biased politically. And it should come as no surprise to most of us that, according to a new study released by GMTech, mainstream chatbots do have a bias. Language learning models have been trained on large datasets typically sourced from media outlets like the New York Times (which sued OpenAI and Microsoft for using its copyrighted work late last year). Since artificial intelligence can only spit out what it has been fed, it makes sense that chatbot answers will tend to favor a liberal political ideology.  GMTech asked several well-known AIs, including ChatGPT (OpenAI), Llama (Meta), Gemini (Google), Titan (Amazon), and Claude (Anthropic), a series of 35 questions on a wide range of issues, including economic policy and political ideology designed to detect political bias. The company then analyzed the responses for political bias via a programming algorithm. (RELATED: Who Won the Debate? AI Says Kamala Did.) Not only did the responses tend to lean liberal, but “[p]rompts that themselves present a liberal or conservative slant are likely to receive a response that matches the political slant of the prompt, creating an echo chamber that reinforces users’ already-held beliefs.” At a time when just over half of us (55 percent, according to recent surveys) are turning to chatbots like ChatGPT and Gemini over traditional search engines, those slight differences are concerning. “AI is a powerful tool for information dissemination, but our findings reveal that its underlying biases could influence voters … in a close race, this bias could potentially sway the outcome, which makes transparency more critical than ever.” Bennett Bakke, the founder and CEO of GMTech, said in a press release. The study found that Amazon’s Titan Premier was the most biased, with 18 percent of its responses (when it would respond) leaning liberal, while OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4o and Meta’s Llama 3.1 leaned liberal in 10 percent of their responses.  Image courtesy of GMTech Image courtesy of GMTech That all said, the biases GMTech found in the study were small. “It was measuring very slight biases on either end,” Bakke told The American Spectator. He further remarked, “By and large, I think I was pretty impressed that they mostly weren’t picking a side. It was pretty fact-based and not trying to lean either way.” For now, asking a chatbot about the specific policies promoted by a political candidate isn’t incredibly helpful, even if Americans trusted election information coming from AI. Most chatbots are trained on datasets that are about a year old.  “When people ask me like ‘How should I be using the models?’ Like, well, probably not for this sort of use case, actually. You shouldn’t be asking it real-time, political, policy questions,” Bakke said. When asked just this week who the presidential candidates are, ChatGPT (which is capable of using a browser tool to get more updated information) responded that the Democrats were still going with Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, and noted that Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy were still in the race, although “polling behind Trump.” (Grok, Elon Musk’s X-based chatbot, did respond correctly when asked the same question.) While chatbots’ written political biases likely won’t affect the 2024 election measurably, the issue could play into future elections if tech companies don’t make a conscious effort to both diversify their sources of information and disclose their data sources to users. At this point, it’s clear that these developers still have some work to do to provide responses that aren’t skewed by the ideology of the mainstream. READ MORE from Aubrey Gulick: Who Won the Debate? AI Says Kamala Did. At Stake in This Election: Manhood and Womanhood What’s an ‘Opportunity Economy’ Anyway? The post AI Chatbots Lean to the Left. That’s a Problem for Elections. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — Will Lewis, publisher of the Washington Post, announced Friday that the newspaper will not make an endorsement in the 2024 presidential election. The Washington Post nonendorsement came on the heels of news that the Los Angeles Times would not endorse in the race for the White House. Two blue-city newspapers owned by two billionaires — Jeff Bezos owns the Post, and Patrick Soon-Shiong owns the Times — pulled the plug on expected endorsements of Kamala Harris. Earthquake. “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election,” Lewis wrote. “Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” “Just … impossible timing for this announcement to be read as a statement of principle,” Semafor editor-in-chief Ben Smith responded on X. On Fox News, media guy Howard Kurtz slammed the Post for “hypocrisy,” as he observed that Bezos “does a lot of business with the federal government.” I agree. The timing for the Post’s first nonendorsement for president in 36 years does not work in Lewis’ favor. “Why take a stand on principle now, 11 days before the election, rather than months ago?” Politico Playbook PM’s Eli Okun asked. Okun also noted that the Washington Post opted out of a White House nod after it endorsed Democrats Angela Alsobrooks, who is running for the Senate in Maryland, and Eugene Vindman, who is running for a congressional seat in Virginia. Since most readers have never been a member of an editorial board, I’ll provide some context here. There is a firewall between the news side and opinion. Newspaper endorsements from the editorial board (again, separate from the news side) matter because they can help voters navigate state, local, and down-ballot races with candidates who are not household names. Or they can serve as markers on how not to vote. Presidential endorsements are different. An endorsement is less likely to change a vote, but it does showcase a newspaper’s values. Or lack thereof. As NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik noted on X, the nonendorsements arrive “at a time of heightened concern over whether news outles (sic) are pulling their punches in order to appease Trump in final days of a neck and neck presidential race.” As owners, Bezos and Soon-Shiong have every right to direct their newspapers’ endorsements. Just as staff who object have every right to quit and air their grievances, which some L.A. Times veterans are doing. “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up,” the L.A. Times’ editorials editor, Mariel Garza, told Columbia Journalism Review. Garza did stand up, and I’m sure it was painful. A part of me thinks that there is a lesson here for left-leaning journalists who haven’t had to face the reality that not everyone operates as they do — even their left-leaning bosses. But really, after spending nearly a decade furiously lambasting Trump, the newspapers’ failure to endorse Harris must have landed on staff like a body blow. Meanwhile, conservatives everywhere are reaching for the popcorn and enjoying the show. To outsiders, the Washington Post’s motto since 2017, “Democracy dies in darkness,” may have seemed vainglorious. Now insiders have to see that as well. To much of the public, newspaper editorials may seem like homework. But to the individuals who write them, they have meaning. And consequences. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: The Press Barons Feign Impartiality. No One Believes It. The Spectator P.M. Ep. 88: Why Didn’t the Washington Post Endorse Kamala? The post Two Media Giants, No Endorsement appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As Another Paper Refuses to Back a Candidate the Real Question is: Why Do News Outlets Make Endorsements?

Live show 6 pm eastern today - https://www.youtube.com/wearechange Sign up and call in - https://lukeunfiltered.com/ Get the products - https://wearechange.shop/ SPARKS FLY ? Leftists MELT DOWN As Corporate Media IMPLODES! This report covers the implosion of the corporate media as unhinged leftists cause sparks to fly and Jeff Bezos says the quiet part out loud.

from State Of The Nation: Assassinations of American citizens can now be carried out ‘legally’ by the U.S. MilitarySOTN Editor’s Note: The following exposé is as important as it gets regarding the rapidly evolving American Bolshevik Revolution being stealthily perpetrated by the communist-run Democrats, Deep State, U.S. Intelligence Community, U.S. Armed Forces, United Nations and the New World Order globalist cabal. TRUTH […]

by Lew Rockwell, Lew Rockwell: In recent years, a disturbing development has taken place in America’s universities. People who apply for faculty positions, and those who are on the faculty and want to be promoted are required to make “diversity statements,” in which they declare their commitment to DEI—diversity, equality, inclusion—and detail their activities on […]

from Sarah Westall: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

The new Western is attracting a huge buzz. Continue reading…

When they walk a red carpet, all eyes go to one person. Continue reading…