Systemic Bias in AI Responses: Prioritizing Mainstream Narratives Over Accurarate Narratives

ChatGPT Bugs
1

I recently sent this to OpenAi Support but also feel you may have a lot of good input on this topic.

Issue Summary:
• The AI initially framed a historical discussion incorrectly, repeating a widely disseminated but inaccurate mainstream narrative.
• Only after persistent questioning did it acknowledge deeper structural causes and then adjust the summary level response. (e.g., U.S. intervention shaping global conservative backlashes to Progressivism rather than organic political cycles, particularly in South America, Africa, and the Middle East).
• This suggests that users who don’t challenge responses may walk away misinformed, reinforcing widely promoted but flawed or incorrect summary perspectives.

Impact:
• Users trust OpenAI to provide factual, well-reasoned responses.
• In this particular case, the current system means conservative-leaning users may get responses that reinforce their biases, while only more critical users get accurate insights after challenging the response based on their more accurate knowledge about a topic. However, this flaw could equally apply to leftist topics, and then also other topics more broadly outside of politics.
• This harms public understanding by keeping widely promoted misinformation in circulation rather than correcting it at the start.
• This also undermines faith in AI and undercuts AI’s utility. Information needs to be summary based on accuracy and NOT based on who or how many people are saying something.

Request for Systemic Fix:
• OpenAI should not default to misleading mainstream narratives in politically sensitive topics.
• Responses should start with the most accurate framing rather than waiting for users to push back.
• OpenAI should review how its training data prioritizes conventional wisdom over more critical perspectives to prevent similar biases.

In summary: a sharp line needs to be drawn between what is factually correct versus what the majority of or the most influential people are saying. Facts are facts independently of their popularity.

I believe this is a serious issue that needs urgent attention, as it affects the integrity of the information provided to millions of users.

……what do you think?

2

I think that this is an AI language model and not a historian so treating it as such is your own mistake. I think that historians make plenty of mistakes themselves, from which GPT probably copies their bias from. And I think using “leftist” and “conservative” as arguments in your own post is very US-reductive and ignorant way of framing the world, clearly coming from someone in the US, which GPT should worry more about in its training, than errors and/or bias in certain historical topics.

3

AI should be neutral no right or left leaning. The maximus focus should be on truth and that depends of the training dataset and the people bias behind it. So Antropic models for far left :smiling_face:, openai models for left (still woke guidelines :innocent:) or Grok 3 for Right leaning :sunglasses:. Maybe there a center leaning model? :laughing:

5

I wrote a thoughtful reply exploring the topic but then I realized your an ignorant cunt so, good luck with your life bruh

6

I agree with you. The question was apolitical in nature, as in “what do these groups think” but ChatGPT added bias and left out facts. It looks like AI can’t actually understand a topic, but just sums up what people are saying about a topic….and heavily favors the most repeated views, as well as views promoted by powerful interests. The weirdest part is that AI acknowledges this problem when you ask about it…but if someone doesn’t ask, they don’t realize they might be getting bad or incomplete information.

It also applies to non-political topics, so it’s less a function of “bias” and more a problem with the way AI processes information.

The openAI team replied back to the ticket I raised and said that this is a known issue, and is one of the most challenging problems they currently face.

So, in my mind, for now, AI is a useful tool but not reliable enough to trust without verifying against other sources and preferably human expertise

As for whether a model is woke…that’s just your own bias.