A disturbing find reveals how Google’s AI chatbot is promoting a left-wing agenda and manipulating public opinion
Unless we live under a rock, we all know how large Google is. It is also widely known that most of their employees lean far to the left with a whopping 88% of political contributions going to Democrats. Their chatbot is named Gemini and if you ask questions about politics, you will invariably get a leftwing spin. I have questioned the chatbot on this many times and the canned response inputted into the computer is “It is important to note that Google strives to maintain an inclusive environment and Google strives to include a wide range of sources from various perspectives to ensure a balanced representation.” This response was entered into the chatbot by the same group of people who heavily favor the left and it is like saying that Republicans would always speak well of Democrats and vice versa.
Google is on a tear to dominate the world of artificial intelligence known as “AI” for short and is one of only a handful of companies with the billions it takes to do it. It takes massive computer systems and thousands of highly paid and trained employees to develop these systems which have already revolutionized the world and will change it in ways we cannot imagine. As a researcher, writer, and website developer, I must produce images and videos. I use AI frequently. In just a few short years, technology has gotten one hundred times better, faster, and more accurate.
Things are happening so rapidly that YouTube videos on AI are out of date after 6 months. Soon will come videos that perfectly fake prominent political figures that would take an expert or another computer to prove it is fake.
Google has created a program named Notebook LM. The program can review a single article, or dozens of articles or videos on a topic and create a podcast of two very lifelike human voices reviewing the contents all at once. It can be any topic such as gardening, the Great Depression, Stoicism, Christianity, or any topic of your interest. In 5 to 10 minutes, you get a podcast review of what you input, whether that be one article or dozens on the same topic. This is the type of thing that if you told someone 20 years ago would happen, they would say you are crazy. Very soon you will see reviews on products that were generated by a person inputting a script and you will not know that the characters and voices are completely AI-created.
But on to the purpose of this article. I have made a few test podcasts. I inputted my article yesterday on the dangers of Kamala Harris and Communism and listened to the AI speakers. I was taken aback by what they were saying because they were saying that my article talked about safety nets and how people start behind others and the article was not specific on just what was being proposed by Kamala Harris. So, I re-entered my article 4 times each time getting comparable results defending the positions taken by Kamala Harris with one of the podcasts never even mentioning her by name but talking in general theory that some people need more help than others.
I had to save the last one for anyone who wants to take the time to listen to it and compare it with my article. Of note is that at the 7:00 mark, the female AI goes into a claim that has nothing at all to do with my article. She defends a basic income stating that “studies have shown it gave people the security to take risks and try things they might not otherwise have tried such as starting a business and going back to school, taking care of family members, getting paid childcare which had been a huge barrier to them finding work.”
Being incredulous and doubting what the AI robot was saying, I had to research the matter and find nothing of the sort. All the details are a little much to include in this piece but there was a program in Texas and Illinois that provided $1,000 per month for three years. It found that while recipients had initial improvements in food security and financial stability, these benefits did not translate into increased education or better job outcomes. Instead, recipients worked fewer hours and experienced lower annual household incomes. The study also noted that recipients did not use the additional time for productive activities like education or caring for family members; rather, they engaged more in leisure activities.
The conclusion was that while some studies indicate that Universal Basic Income (UBI) can provide financial stability that might support educational and career endeavors, the empirical evidence is not uniformly positive. Many experiments show mixed results, with some indicating that UBI does not necessarily lead to increased education or better job outcomes.
So, what does all this mean? Here I wrote an article on the dangers of Kamala Harris’s proposals that are similar to Communism and Marxism and input that into a computer program developed by Google and I got a critique from essentially talking robots that effectively says Communism and Marxism aren’t all that bad because they want to help some people, but the robots use phony data. Had we not had the ability to do further research we might go along in life believing the podcast to be true. After all, the information they get is from scouring many sources. This sort of thing happens frequently with Google. The feedback you get is always with a far-left liberal slant. When confronted with that fact, the Google robot gives a canned response that they seek to be unbiased and do not seek out liberal opinions.
In this case, I was expecting a review of my article and not a Fact Check like what one would expect from a Marxist professor defending their utopian worldview. The truth is that Communism, Marxism, and Socialist systems do not work in real life. They work only in theory. It reminds me of a comment someone made about a football team that experts touted to be the odds-on favorite to make it to the Super Bowl. They looked at the personnel, the coaching staff, the quarterback, and every detail but the team wound up not making the playoffs. The comment was “Well, they looked good on paper!”
You can take the most talented team in the world who thinks they have the game won and decides to take the week off and not practice and plays with no enthusiasm because they feel they don’t have to and put them against a team who reviews the game film, practices all day long, studies each player and winds up beating the tar out of the superior team.
Tinkering with humanity has been tried before in other countries. Giving people money for not working is what does not work. If someone is hungry you teach him how to grow food or you teach him how to make the money necessary to buy it. You do not just give it to him. Communism and Marxism are like that team that was a sure bet to go to the Super Bowl. “Well, it looked good on paper.” In the meantime, the economy crashes, people do not work, and food and essentials become scarce. For kicks, I will put this article into that chatbot and see if it remembers me. I am married but that female bot sounds cute. She will give me a guaranteed income and buy me a house and a car, so I will not have to write articles anymore.
I think we make a mistake in assuming that some people just do not understand the facts, and that we can change their minds about socialism if we can just make them listen to the facts. I disagree. My observation is that it is becoming more important to voters to choose the candidate or proposition that “appears” more well-intentioned, even though the results are guaranteed for failure. I believe that too many people want to make themselves feel good about choosing leaders who are “nice” (or maybe of a non-white, non-masculine race or culture), in a misguided effort to appear “fair.” They don’t get it that “fair” is only relevant in games. Real life is never “fair.” The best results come from the smartest strategies and the most logical decisions. There are so many ways to be nice, in our day-to-day real lives, but nice and fair cannot be goals for our government. If we keep up with this fantasy, we are going to be annihilated by the hordes of very un-nice, un-fair, evil, backward, illogical, unintelligent and power-mad civilizations that want to destroy America. When you repeat the facts over and over, you are either “preaching to the choir,” or else wasting your breath. Frankly, the only solution I can come with is pretty ridiculous, but it’s all I have: Try to convince the best possible leading candidates to “appear nice” to voters who require niceness, while somehow remaining awesome and unpredictable and fearsome to the enemies who are plotting America’s destruction.