I don’t expect AI to understand this (I don’t expect AI to understand anything), but a “neutral” or its common synonym, “objective,” stance is an impossiblity.
Scholars aim for a neutral analysis in their studies, trying to achieve a conclusion produced only by the results of “objective” analysis. It’s better than saying “I like it, that settles it!,” but that’s because the raw assertion of preference is replaced by argument. The better the argument, the better the conclusions. But there is no such thing as a truly objective stance. As Kierkegaard said: no one has an objective stance on their own existence. Which raises an interesting question: does AI have being, which is to say, existence?
The terms are not synonymous, nor co-terminous. The phone I’m typing on “exists,” in that it has mass, shape, form, even solidity. That doesn’t mean it has being. Even when all traces of personality have been erased by dementia, a person still has being. And everyone who knows them has a subjective view of them. No one is neutral.
I’m squashing a lot into a little, here. 30 pounds of shit into a one-pound bag level squashing. In literacy criticism theory, the “objective” response to a text is considered a con…on the person who thinks their analysis starts from a non-subjective posture. It’s like saying you have an objective opinion about your own existence. You’re just fooling yourself, as surely as Trump does when he says polls show his approval rating is the highest recorded. Trump cannot consider any ideas that he doesn’t share could be valid, and he certainly can’t accept any ideas that threaten his ego.
No more can catturd consider an idea he doesn’t agree with. Catturd thinks Grok is woke because Grok analyzes data according to its programming and machine learning, and comes to different conclusions than he does. The fact is, Grok makes different assumptions, or starts from different bases, in making its analysis than catturd does, and probably considers information catturd rejects outright. Catturd hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. Grok analyzes a large body of relevant data and reaches reasoned conclusions based on its programming. Is Grok neutral? In this arena, what is “neutral”? If Grok’s arguments are sound and well reasoned, it is more challenging to reject them. But it isn’t incontrovertible proof that Grok is right because Grok is “neutral.”
Whether or not it is truly neutral (whatever that is), neutrality is never the goal. The only relevant question is: who has the better argument?