[kelipso]

It’s not “unfounded”. Wikipedia is biased and saying that’s “propaganda” or a result of propaganda is a nonsense non-argument.

> Saying "there very likely […]

What’s with this nitpicky stuff. A simple google search shows there’s tons of research in LLM political bias evaluation.

> There is no guarantee [..] path to eliminating it?

It’s research. Sure there’s no guarantee but given progress in LLM, I would be optimistic rather than pessimistic.

[greggoB]

> It’s not “unfounded”. Wikipedia is biased and saying that’s “propaganda” or a result of propaganda is a nonsense non-argument.

It specifically is unfounded if you have no credible sources to back it up. "Trust me bro" doesn't qualify.

> What’s with this nitpicky stuff

This is HN, you should be prepared to validate what you're saying, or accept you'll be challenged to do so.

> It’s research. Sure there’s no guarantee but given progress in LLM, I would be optimistic rather than pessimistic.

This is a really poor argument when advocating it (AI) as a viable replacement for the status quo.

[kelipso]

There has been lots of discussion about wikipedia’s bias in HN and elsewhere for years and I’m not going to rehash all of that.

> […] AI) as a viable replacement for the status quo.

Given that the status quo is clearly biased and structurally unwilling to be unbiased due to existing political affiliation, even an AI that is not evaluated all that well will be better. It can only get better from this status quo, so it’s a fine argument.