Comment by 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
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.
> 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?
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
I still fail to see how these would work with an LLM