Comment by andybak
14 days ago
OK. Apologies for imprecision. I was replying in a rush.
> A reasoner can strive for "objective neutrality" with good results.
By "reasoner" do you largely mean "person"? If I have issues with your statement but they are probably a slight distraction to the point at hand.
> speaking of "objective neutrality" does not really match the context of LLMs.
Agreed. They produce output based on their training data. But the use and evaluation of LLM output by a person is what we're discussing here. And that's where (flawed) concepts like objectivity and neutrality enter the discussion.
You could look at it like this: if some idea is more objective than some other, and some idea is more neutral than some other, then objectivity and neutrality exist.
Yes and no. Something can exist as a fact of the universe but still be unknowable. i.e. some hypothetical oracle could measure the quantum states of all human brains and ascertain what true objectivity looks like.
Regular mortals can have any certainty about this dbut espite the logical neccessity that this fact "exists" in some sense.
I think we're essentially also talking about the Overton Window to some degree. But that means you need to be OK with the thought that a sudden rise in extremism on one side of the political spectrum can alter the what you personally have to regard as "neutral and objective".