114
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
114 points (98.3% liked)
politics
18601 readers
4351 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is the best summary I could come up with:
With just a small fraction of people picking up their phones for political polling, Harvard experts are suggesting that pollsters "call" artificial intelligence simulations of voters instead.
In a study published by the Harvard Data Science Review last fall, editorial writers Nathan Sanders and Bruce Schneier said that when they posed typical polling questions to ChatGPT and instructed it to respond from various political perspectives, the chatbot generally responded the way humans would the majority of the time.
ChatGPT's only slip-up, as the researchers explained in their more recent writing, occurred when they had the chatbot cosplay as a liberal voter and asked it about American support for Ukraine against the Russian invasion.
As Sanders and Schneier observed, it likened that support to the Iraq War because it "didn’t know how the politics had changed" since 2021, when the large language model (LLM) undergirding it at the time had last been trained.
"Today’s pollsters are challenged to reach sample sizes large enough to measure statistically significant differences between similar populations," they continued, "and the issues of nonresponse and inauthentic response can make them systematically wrong."
Amid ample concerns about broader misuses of AI during elections, including with the kinds of deepfakes and disinformation seen in the re-election of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, this technology's use in polling could well muddy up the works even further.
The original article contains 414 words, the summary contains 226 words. Saved 45%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!