> We want Claude to be seen as fair and > trustworthy by people across the political > spectrum, and to be unbiased and even-handed > in its approach to political topics.

So, a lot of 'seems' rather than 'is.' They are training this to be non-offensive, based on some weird moral / media takes that shift year to year, political cycle to political cycle to political cycle. Not for bring forthright and fact based.

After decades of 'proprietary, respect, professionalism', this kind of childishness is just gross and embarrassing.

None of these are one size fits all solutions, and there should be a mix. We have a working patch-work of laws in physical space, for a reason. It allow flexibility, and adjustments as we go, as the world changes. We should extended that to virtual space as well.

Age / Content Labeling and opt-in/ opt-out for some content. Outright ban on other kinds of content. A similar "I sue when you abuse my content" for copyright, impersonation, etc.

One size does not fit all, and is not how the real world works. Online shouldn't work much differently.

People don't have one standard of behavior. I won't tell my kid jokes, I tell my wife. I won't complain about people in public, the way I vent to my sister (who gets it is just me venting, not how I feel all the time". I am not going to speak to a cop as I'm getting a speeding ticket, they way I will talk to one who is harassing a friend at a parade.

I won't talk to / about a co-worker in a meeting, the way I talk to someone he just (rightly, but very meanly) chewed out, and who needs a boss who listens, or will I talk to him in a meeting the way I will (a tad later) chew him out for making a coworker cry.

This take is so naive and emotionally / socially unintelligent about human behavior in various situations.

Criticize the president? Not best behavior. Kiss someone of your sex/gender? Not best behavior. Call AI stupid? Not best behavior. Whistleblower on out a deadly chemical leak? Not best behavior. Disagree with a politician? Not best behavior. Defined LGBTQ+ people's rights? Not best behavior. Criticize Isreal ? Not best behavior.

They are going to define "best behavior" in a way that never threatens their feelings, let alone threatens their powers, if you let them.

Results that are too good to be true! The probably are. If this study was reproducible (it is not) someone would have started using it, bragging about it, and we would have 'recovery vacations' to cruise lines that would de-age us by years.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this just isn't it.

(Hat tip to to patel011393 for getting this link out there first: https://www.pubpeer.com/search?q=ellen+langer )

cool (not really true) story. Cool anecdote. Not science.

Exactly the analogy I was going to make. :)

This stink of a "Low priority project use as a place-holder, but as soon as even a mouse-sneeze comes up, the resources are put to a better used, and it is kicked down the road"

But (as you say) we are all pre-trained to assume 'red tape / regulations' so we back-fill that explanation, even with no evidence.

*(I Wouldn't mind a second reader, read them fast and searched, may have missed something.)

I don't have proof, but this stinks of 'Failed project used as a place-holder for schedule slop'. I see is so so so many places.

Somebody, or a lot of somebodies knows this [Refactor AIP / Electric Charge Lot] is not a good idea. Instead of saying 'It's dead' it gets used as a buffer in the project plan. Oh it's there, and if things are every slow enough, it will happen. But even a mouse sneeze will move it out a year, to make budget [time, or $$$ ] for something useful.

Once a year the [ boss / newspaper] will ask "Oh what about, [refactor / Parking Lot]' and somewhere points to the start and end date on the chart. But it's not a priority, and is a placeholder job that gets bumped and shifted for priority work.

It is all over the place, since time began. WWII had it. The Revolutionary War had it. Ford has it. Roman Empire had it. Lockheed Martin has it. Hell, your own house projects have it.

This is just 'A dead project is a placeholder since the org is bad at planning.' It is everywhere.

:pop-corn:

WTF? Somebody needs to touch some !@#@%^ grass. Like roll around in it for hours, maybe smoke some (legal) weed before hand.

It's sci-fi entertainment, for crying out Louis, not a political or philosophy movement.

Get over it, get outside, and go hug a tree.

Watching a bunch of arm-chair experts guess that this building means more than it is is a wastes of time. (Approx) 3% of comments here make sense, are enlightening, 97% are just self-assured "Dunning Kruger effect" amateurs guessing they can deduct real info from this is weird. Good waste of 10 minutes for me though.

At the same time it is a shoestring budget nonprofit, doing tons of good for the world, thanklessly.

It is not a right, a government service, or even a service you pay for. You have no right to demand anything, just because they are kindly providing you value.

Cut them some slack, and stop acting like they own you anything. Maybe even gasp thank them for doing so much good, with no support, for everyone in the world, for free

We have it easier as a large country, and we still do the dumbest short-term thinking thing.