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

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
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Teenager admiring electronic hobby robot.

Explore how China is overtaking the U.S. in the global innovation race, from electric vehicles to advanced research, and why America’s fragmented science policy, talent loss, and weak industrial strategy threaten its technological leadership.

Getty Images, Willie B. Thomas

America’s Greatest Geopolitical Blind Spot

The global hierarchy of innovation is undergoing a structural shift that Washington is dangerously slow to acknowledge. For decades, the prevailing narrative in the United States was that China was merely the "world’s factory"—a nation capable of mass-producing Western designs but inherently lacking the creative spark to invent its own. This assumption has been shattered. Today, Beijing is no longer playing catch-up; in sectors ranging from electric vehicles and next-generation nuclear power to hypersonic missiles, China is setting the pace.

The central challenge is that China has mastered the entire innovation ecosystem, while the United States has allowed its own to fracture. Innovation is not just about a "eureka" moment in a laboratory; it is a relay race that begins with basic scientific research, moves through the training of specialized talent, and ends with the large-scale commercialization of "hard tech." China is currently winning every leg of that race.

Keep ReadingShow less