Trump wants to ban 'woke AI.' Here's why it's hard to make a truly neutral chatbot.
The White House on Wednesday issued an executive order requiring any AI model used by the federal government to be ideologically neutral, nonpartisan, and "truth-seeking."
The order, part of the White House's new AI Action Plan, said AI should not be "woke" or "manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas" like diversity, equity, and inclusion. The White House said it would issue guidance within 120 days that will outline exactly how AI makers can show they are unbiased.
As Business Insider's past reporting shows, making AI completely free from bias is easier said than done.
Why it's so hard to create a truly 'neutral' AI
Removing bias from AI models is not a simple technical adjustment — or an exact science.
The later stages of AI training rely on the subjective calls of contractors.
This process, known as reinforcement learning from human feedback, is crucial because topics can be ambiguous, disputed, or hard to define cleanly in code.
The directives for what counts as sensitive or neutral are decided by the tech companies making the chatbots.
"We don't define what neutral looks like. That's up to the customer," Rowan Stone, the CEO of data labeling firm Sapien, which works with customers like Amazon and MidJourney, told BI. "Our job is to make sure they know exactly where the data came from and why it looks the way it does."
In some cases, tech companies have recalibrated their chatbots to make their models less woke, more flirty, or more engaging.
Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you.
What is your job title? (1 of 2)
Entry level position
Project manager
Management
Senior management
Executive management
Student
Self-employed
Retired
Other
Continue
By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy .
They are also already trying to make them more neutral.
BI previously reported that contractors for Meta and Google projects were often told to flag and penalize"preachy" chatbot responses that sounded moralizing or judgmental.
Is 'neutral' the right approach?
Sara Saab, the VP of product at Prolific, an AI and datatraining company, told BI that thinking about AI systems that are perfectly neutral "may be the wrong approach" because "human populations are not perfectly neutral."
Saab added, "We need to start thinking about AI systems as representing us and therefore give them the training and fine-tuning they need to know contextually what the culturally sensitive, appropriate tone and pitch is for any interaction with a human being."
Tech companies must also consider the risk of bias creeping into AI models from the datasets they are trained on.
"Bias will always exist, but the key is whether it's there by accident or by design," said Sapien's Stone. "Most models are trained on data where you don't know who created it or what perspective it came from. That makes it hard to manage, never mind fix."
Big Tech's tinkering with AI models has sometimes led to unpredictable and harmful outcomes
Earlier this month, for example, Elon Musk's xAI rolled back a code update to Grok after the chatbot went on a 16-hour antisemitic rant on the social media platform X.
The bot's new instructions included a directive to "tell it like it is."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bid to relocate US Space Shuttle Discovery faces museum pushback
Tucked inside President Donald Trump's flagship tax and spending bill last month was a little-noticed provision to relocate the iconic Space Shuttle Discovery from a museum outside Washington to Houston. The plan now faces legal uncertainty, with the Smithsonian Institution arguing Congress had no authority to give away what it considers private property -- even before accounting for the steep logistical and financial challenges. "The Smithsonian Institution owns the Discovery and holds it in trust for the American public," the museum network, which receives substantial federal funding yet remains an independent entity, said in a statement to AFP on Friday. "In 2012, NASA transferred 'all rights, title, interest and ownership' of the shuttle to the Smithsonian," the statement continued, calling Discovery one of the museum's "centerpieces" that welcomes millions of visitors a year. The push to move Discovery from the Air and Space Museum's site in northern Virginia began in April, when Texas Senator John Cornyn, a Republican who faces a tough primary challenge next year by state attorney general Ken Paxton, introduced the "Bring the Space Shuttle Home Act," naming Discovery. The legislation stalled until it was folded into the mammoth "Big Beautiful Bill," signed into law on July 4. Its passage allocated $85 million for the move, though the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has projected a far higher cost of $325 million, adding that the NASA administrator's power over non-NASA entities is "unclear." To comply with Senate rules, the bill's language was modified such that Discovery is no longer named directly. Instead, the bill refers to a "space vehicle," though there is little doubt as to the target. NASA's administrator -- currently Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, serving in an acting capacity -- was given 30 days to identify which spacecraft is to be relocated, a deadline coming up on Sunday. - End of an era - NASA's Space Shuttle program ended in 2011, after a 30-year run that carried America's post-Apollo space ambitions. The four surviving orbiters -- Atlantis, Endeavour, prototype Enterprise, and Discovery -- were awarded to Florida, California, New York, and Virginia through a ranked selection process. Discovery, the most flown, was chosen as a vehicle-of-record in a near-complete state, intended for study by future generations. "There was not a lot of support within Houston to want a shuttle," space historian Robert Pearlman told AFP, adding that a proposal to house it at Space Center Houston was relatively weak. But after the announcement, Texas -- home to the Johnson Space Center, which oversees NASA's human spaceflight -- felt snubbed, and allegations of political interference by then-president Barack Obama swirled. A NASA inspector general probe found no evidence of foul play. - Enormous challenges - Relocating Discovery now would pose major technical hurdles. NASA had modified two Boeing 747s to ferry retired shuttles -- one is now a museum piece, and the other is out of service. That leaves land and water transport. "The nearest water entrance to the Potomac River is about 30 miles away," Pearlman said -- but it may be too shallow for the orbiter and required barge, requiring a 100-mile journey instead. A water transport would require a massive enclosed barge, he added. The US government owns only one such vessel, controlled by the military. Loaning it to a civilian agency would require another act of Congress, and the alternative would involve building one from scratch. Dennis Jenkins, a former shuttle engineer who oversaw the delivery of retired orbiters to their new homes, told the Collect Space outlet he could see costs reach a billion dollars. Nicholas O'Donnell, an attorney at Sullivan & Worcester with expertise in art and museum law, told AFP that assuming Smithsonian has valid paperwork, "I don't think Secretary Duffy or anyone in the federal government has any more authority to order the move of Discovery than you or I do." The government could invoke eminent domain -- seizing private property for public use -- but it would have to pay fair market value or try to sue. The Smithsonian is unlikely to want a court battle, and while it's legally independent, its financial reliance on federal funds leaves it politically vulnerable, said O'Donnell. ia/jgc
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent
Columbia University's $200 million agreement with President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government "assault" on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme." - Federal oversight - The deal goes beyond addressing anti-Semitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions "represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy," said Pozen. "What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society," he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal "signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them." In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the "administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit." Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that "in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating." - 'First round' - Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a "template for other universities around the country." On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted "there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies" but were "priorities of the federal administration." Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities "has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history." While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be "weaponized" and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: "Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more." "There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round," he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for "major research universities to hold the line" compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and "fight back," including in the courts. "Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do," he said. "This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together." aks/wd
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries
As President Donald Trump unveiled a blitz of new tariffs across different countries on Thursday, the markets remained largely unfazed by the move. What Happened: On Thursday, in a post on X, The Kobeissi Letter highlighted the market's muted response to Trump's sweeping new moves on the trade and tariff front. The post notes that Trump 'randomly' increased tariffs on Canada, the largest trading partner of the United States, from 25% to 35%. Followed by a string of new tariffs on others, such as 'Vietnam, Switzerland, South Africa, Taiwan, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, and Venezuela.' Trending: 7,000+ investors have joined Timeplast's mission to eliminate microplastics—now it's your turn to Yet, the market response was underwhelming, with S&P 500 futures 'down a mere 10 points,' which the post attributes almost entirely to 'Amazon's weak earnings results.' It says that in April, when the 'Liberation Day' tariffs were first announced, such a move would have sent the S&P 500 lower by 3% or more. The post says 'the trade war has lost all credibility' in the market, and that it has lost the 'shock effect' that it had a couple of months ago. Why It Matters: This could be seen as a fallout of the 'TACO Trade' meme, or 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' where investors buy equities right after Trump makes a tariff threat, knowing fully well that he will eventually back out. Economist Peter Schiff recently called this 'a classic paradox,' since markets not reacting to Trump's tariffs, because they expect him to 'chicken out,' will eventually lead him to follow through on his threats. 'Investors assume Trump will cancel the August 1 tariffs before they kick in, so stocks aren't selling off,' he says, but since there isn't a dramatic market response to this, 'Trump won't chicken out again.' Read Next: $100k+ in investable assets? Match with a fiduciary advisor for free to learn how you can maximize your retirement and save on taxes – no cost, no obligation. Bezos' Favorite Real Estate Platform Launches A Way To Ride The Ongoing Private Credit Boom Photo courtesy: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article 'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries originally appeared on
