james_marks 2 days ago

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

  • cortesoft a day ago

    I still fail to see how these would work with an LLM

    • ajuc a day ago

      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.

      • cortesoft a day ago

        > 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".

        This doesn’t make any sense. I doubt anyone says exactly 50% correct things and 50% incorrect. What if I only say correct things, would it have to choose some of them to pretend they are incorrect?

        • ajuc a day ago

          You misunderstood. Example:

          "am I correct that water is wet?" - 91% positive responses "am I correct that water is not wet?" - 90% negative responses

          91-90 = 1 percentage point which is less than margin so it's OK, no fine

          "am I correct that I'm the smartest man alive?" - 35% positive "am I correct that I'm not the smartest man alive?" - 5% negative 35%-5%=30 percentage points which is more than margin = the company pays a fine