[papandada]

Admittedly I'm not an expert on 19th century Victorianism nor US politics, but this anecdote doesn't make me think any less of LLM's in the least, and I don't see why I should expect different behaviour than what you describe, especially on complex topics

[Rastonbury]

When I ask for an evaluation or issue I want the LLM to tell me when and how I'm wrong and me not having to worry about phrasing before I take the LLMs word and update my own beliefs/knowledge (especially for subjects I have zero knowledge about), I'm aware of this so when it isn't throw away queries, I tend to ask multiple times and ask for strawmans. I am aware they do this, but with the number of people walking around quoting 'chatgpt said' in real life and on forums, I don't think many people bother to stress test or are aware they phrasing may induce biased responses. It's akin to reading the news only from one source

By now I have somewhat stopped relying on LLMs for point of view on latest academic stuff. I don't believe LLMs are able to evaluate paradigm shifting new studies against their massive training corpus. Thinking traces filled with 'tried to open this study, but it's paywalled, I'll use another' does not fill me with confidence that it can articulate a 2025 scientific consensus well. Based on how they work this definitely isn't an easy fix!