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

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters
Woman typing on laptop at wooden table with breakfast.

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters

When the World goes Mad, one must accept Madness as Sanity, since Sanity is, in the last analysis, nothing but the Madness on which the Whole World happens to agree. (George Bernard Shaw)

Among the most prolific and famous playwrights of the 20th century, Shaw wrote “Pygmalion,” the play upon which “My Fair Lady” was based. Pygmalion was a Greek mythological figure, a sculptor from Cyprus, who fell in love with the statue he created. Aphrodite turned his sculpture into a real woman, promoting the idea that the “created” is greater than the “creator.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit
a sign with a question mark and a question mark drawn on it

Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit

In March, First Lady Melania Trump hosted an AI-powered humanoid robot at the White House during the Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit, and introduced Plato, a humanoid educator marketed as a replacement for teachers that could homeschool children. A humanoid educator that speaks multiple languages, is always available, and draws on a vast store of information could expand access in meaningful ways. But the evidence suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits, that adoption will be uneven, and that the families most likely to adopt Plato will bear those risks disproportionately.

Research on excessive technology use in childhood has found consistent results. Young children and teenagers who spend too much time with screens are more likely to experience reduced physical activity, lower attention spans, depression, and social anxiety. On the same day that Melania Trump introduced Plato, a California jury ruled that Meta and YouTube contributed to anxiety and depression in a woman who began using social media at age 6, a reminder that the consequences of under-tested technology on children can be severe and long-lasting.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less