A.I. is rigged. When looking up any question susceptible of a liberal bias, A.I. appears to provide a biased answer.
Today I asked my A.I. “copilot,” “How long does it take to re-fuel a gas-powered car?”
Even without being asked, my copilot insisted on comparing fueling time for gas-powered cars to charging times for E.V.s, concluding that “in summary, while gas refueling is faster in the worst-case scenario, considering overall monthly time spent, E.V.s are more efficient in terms of charging time.”
I didn’t even ask about charging time for E.V.s, but A.I. insisted on comparing E.V.s with gas-powered cars so it could conclude that E.V.s are better. If that’s not rigged, what is?
Since A.I. brought it up, I decided to follow up by asking whether gas-powered cars are more affordable than E.V.s. I’m certain that they are, but once again, A.I. came up with the woke answer, concluding, after a long, circuitous argument, that “in summary, while gas-powered cars may have a lower initial cost, electric cars offer long-term savings, environmental benefits, and a smoother driving experience.”
A.I. arrived at both answers in a convoluted and, I believe, dishonest manner. Regarding fueling time, A.I. assumes a weekly refueling for gas-powered cars but mileage of only 1,000 miles per month for E.V.s. An average gas-powered car today makes some 500 miles per16-gallon tank, requiring about two refills per month — not one refill per week.
Also, A.I. assumes that it takes 10 minutes to refuel a gas-powered car. The average refueling time is half that. (This information is buried in dozens of pages devoted to recharging times for E.V.s — clearly, someone doesn’t want us to know how little time it takes to refuel a gas-powered car.)
In sum, the fueling time for gas-powered vehicles is one fourth what A.I. assumes, while the charging time for E.V.s is much, much greater, given that A.I. glosses over the problem of finding a public charging station and the nightmare of charging multiple times on a longer trip. Then, even for a “fast charging” station, average charging time is 30 minutes.
A.I. states that recharging E.V.s takes “less of your time” than refueling gas-powered cars. That may be true if you rely exclusively on a home charging station, but not if you charge your E.V. once a month or more at a public charging facility. For an average driver refueling twice a month, gas-powered cars require 120 minutes of refueling time annually. Just once a month for an E.V. away from home requires 360 minutes annually if you’re lucky, something A.I. doesn’t tell you. If you’re unlucky, you will be stranded without a charge.
Keep in mind, I didn’t ask A.I. for the gas-powered vs. E.V. comparison. I just wanted to know how long it takes to refuel a gas-powered vehicle. I would call the A.I. answer “brainwashing,” and I suspect that A.I.-generated brainwashing of that sort takes place billions of times every day.
It’s crucial to understand the magnitude of the A.I. problem. A.I. is not a neutral, fact-based device that only makes workers more productive and our lives easier. A.I. at heart is a man-made computer program, and that design appears to reflect the biases of the left.
Just to check my assumption once again, I typed in, “Do transgender adolescents regret gender-affirming treatment later in life?” I received a long answer complete with scientific references from places like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (bet most readers didn’t know that WPATH actually exists) and an unspecified Dutch research study concluding that “none of the youth in adulthood regretted the decisions they had made during adolescence.” None?
In conclusion, A.I. informs us that “while regret exists in some cases [about 1%], it is not a common outcome.”
This A.I.-generated answer failed to consider a 2022 New York Post article by Rikki Schlott on “Why detransitioned teens regret changing genders.” The information in this article is extremely troubling. As Schlott points out, “many will struggle for the rest of their lives with the irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors.”
“Transitioning regret” is more common than A.I. leads us to believe. There are numerous social and media pressures on adolescents and children that may lead them to “transition,” but as Schlott points out, “a variety of studies suggest that as many as 80% of dysphoric children could ultimately experience “desistance” — or coming to terms with their biological gender without resorting to transition.” In other words, 80% of those who transition are only experiencing temporary unease with their sex and might be better off not transitioning.
My copilot fails to cover any of these points. In fact, A.I. presents what I consider a very one-sided response to my question. A.I. may even be part of those social and media forces pressuring young people to attempt to change their sex. On this as on so many other questions, I do not find A.I. neutral or reliable.
So what happens as society becomes increasingly reliant on A.I. for quick answers to complex questions? What happens is that simplistic answers with a liberal bias are institutionalized within our culture to the point that it becomes difficult to refute them. Those who raise sensitive questions about gun control, sex, or the environment will simply be referred back to A.I., which provides the same progressive answer every time.
In this way, A.I. may well become the ontological basis of the authoritarian left-wing culture that now threatens America. As Orwell wrote in 1984, “power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.” A.I. and social media in general are, I believe, “tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again,” and for much the same reason as depicted in 1984: the pursuit of power for its own sake.
America has moved dangerously close to becoming an Orwellian state, where electorates are blocked from voting for competing candidates, competing candidates are repeatedly hauled into court just at the time when they need to be campaigning, schools are controlled by ideologues who believe that parents have no role in their children’s education, universities in the hands of radical leftists allow attacks on Jews, homosexual and trans propaganda is shoved down our throats, those with religious convictions are overruled by radicals in the so-called Justice Department, government spending threatens to collapse the economy (after which the left will step in with “solutions” that involve the seizure of private capital), and a host of other matters.
In all of this, A.I. has the potential to serve as a powerful tool for the suppression of reasonable conservative thinking. Stop it while we can, or we may never have the chance again.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).
Image via Unsplash.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
