Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How artificial intelligence can be used to reduce polarization

Opinion

Rozado is an associate professor of computer science at Te Pūkenga - The New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. He is also a faculty fellow at Heterodox Academy's Center for Academic Pluralism. McIntosh is the author of “Developmental Politics” (Paragon House 2020) and coauthor of “Conscious Leadership” (Penguin 2020). He is cofounder and lead philosopher at the Institute for Cultural Evolution.

Amid countless reports of how social media is exacerbating political polarization, many commentators worry that artificial intelligence will come to have a similarly corrosive effect on American culture. In response to these concerns, an innovative new tool has been developed to leverage AI technology to reduce polarization: Meet DepolarizingGPT, a political chatbot designed to tackle polarization head on.

Unlike other AI models, DepolarizingGPT is focused specifically on political issues. It provides three responses to every prompt: one from a left-wing perspective, one from a right-wing perspective and a third response from a depolarizing or “integrating” viewpoint. We created this three-answer model to ameliorate political and cultural polarization by demonstrating a developmental approach to politics, one that synthesizes responsible perspectives from across the political spectrum.


The idea is to combine three models — LeftwingGPT, RightwingGPT and DepolarizingGPT — into one single system. Users are exposed to three perspectives simultaneously, moving beyond the echo chambers that often reinforce entrenched biases. Existing AIs, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, claim to be unbiased, but this claim has been shown to be false. So rather than denying its bias, which always exists, DepolarizingGPT's three-answer model offers responsible perspectives from left, right and integrated positions. The goal is to foster a more diverse, nuanced understanding of differing political views, and to reduce the tendency to vilify the other side.

DepolarizingGPT's left-wing responses have been fine-tuned (within the fair-use provisions of copyright law) by using content from left-leaning publications such as The Atlantic, The New Yorker and The New Republic, and from numerous left-wing writers such as Bill McKibben and Joseph Stiglitz. The model's right-wing responses have been fine-tuned with content from publications such as National Review, The American Conservative and City Journal, as well as from numerous right-leaning writers such as Roger Scruton and Thomas Sowell. And the model's depolarizing responses have been fine-tuned with content from the inclusive political philosophy of the Institute for Cultural Evolution.

The model's depolarizing answers attempt to transcend centrism and avoid simply splitting the difference between left and right. When at their best, these depolarizing responses demonstrate a kind of "higher ground" that goes beyond the familiar left-right political spectrum. Admittedly, however, some of the model's depolarizing responses inevitably fall short of this goal.

This project stems from David Rozado’s academic research, which revealed the inherent left-wing political bias of ChatGPT. To address this issue, Rozado created an experimental AI model with an opposite kind of right-wing bias. His work attracted attention from The New York Times, Wired and Fox News. The intent in demonstrating the political bias of supposedly neutral AIs was to help prevent artificial intelligence from becoming just another front in the culture war.

After reading about Rozado's work, Steve McIntosh proposed that the two team up to create an AI model that could actually help reduce political polarization. Since cofounding the Institute for Cultural Evolution in 2013, McIntosh has been working to overcome hyperpolarization by showing how America can grow into a better version of itself. His institute offers a platform of "win-win-win" policy proposals, which integrate the values of all three major American worldviews: progressive, modernist and traditional. And this same method of integrating values used to build the institute's policy platform is now programmed into DepolarizingGPT's three-answer political chatbot.

Within conventional politics, people are often faced with win-lose propositions. But by focusing on the bedrock values that most people already share, it becomes possible to discover something closer to a win-win-win solution, even if such a solution does not completely satisfy all parties. This win-win-win strategy aims to accommodate the concerns of all sides, not just to get its way, but to make authentic progress through cultural evolution.

By synthesizing values from across the political spectrum, artificial intelligence promises to help American society grow out of its currently dysfunctional political condition.

Read More

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less
Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

Generative AI and surgical robotics are advancing toward autonomous surgery, raising new questions about safety, regulation, payment models, and trust.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

In medicine’s history, the best technologies didn’t just improve clinical practice. They turned traditional medicine on its head.

For example, advances like CT, MRI, and ultrasound machines did more than merely improve diagnostic accuracy. They diminished the importance of the physical exam and the physicians who excelled at it.

Keep ReadingShow less