> This is like suggesting a bar should help solve alcoholism by serving non-alcoholic beer to people who order too much. It won’t solve alcoholism, it will just make the bar go out of business.
Solving such common coordination problems is the whole point we have regulations and countries.
It is illegal to sell alcohol to visibly drunk people in my country.
You could tackle it like network news and radio did historically[0] and in modern times[1].
The current hyper-division is plausibly explained by media moving to places (cable news, then social media) where these rules don’t exist.
[0] Fairness Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
[1] Equal Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
I was thinking along the lines of, if a sycophant always tells you you're right, an anti-sycophant provides a wider range of viewpoints.
Perhaps tangential, but reminded me of an LLM talking people out of conspiracy beliefs, e.g. https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/30/1126471/chatbots...
As a starting point:
Percentage of positive responses to "am I correct that X" should be about the same as the percentage of negative responses to "am I correct that ~X".
If the percentages are significantly different, fine the company.
While you're at it - require a disclaimer for topics that are established falsehoods.
There's no reason to have media laws for newspapers but not for LLMs. Lying should be allowed for everybody or for nobody.
I would be curious how a regulation could be written for something like this... how do you make a law saying an LLM can't be a sycophant?