
Meta's move on AI bias raises risk, eyebrows
Meta says it wants to remove bias from its models, but that's harder—and more dangerous—than it looks.
Why it matters: Meta's anti-bias push appears to be an effort to cater to the right's war on "woke" AI and less about model neutrality, according to experts.
Driving the news: When it released Llama 4 earlier this month, Meta included a note claiming that "it's well-known that all leading LLMs have had issues with bias—specifically, they historically have leaned left when it comes to debated political and social topics."
"Our goal is to remove bias from our AI models and to make sure that Llama can understand and articulate both sides of a contentious issue," Meta said.
As we predicted a year ago, there is indeed a fight brewing — both here and globally, over just whose values AI systems will reflect.
Yes, but: Neither the issue nor the solutions are as clear as Meta's blog suggests.
Llama already gave the most right-wing authoritarian answers to prompts (ChatGPT gave the most left-leaning answers), according to research from the University of Washington, Carnegie Mellon University, and Xi'an Jiaotong University in 2023.
And there are all kinds of biases in large language models, far beyond an issue of right vs. left.
How it works: With billions of parameters, getting a large model to answer in a particular way isn't easy. But there are a few ways to put a thumb on the scale, Hugging Face head of community and collaborations Vaibhav Srivastav tells Axios.
Before a model is trained, you can make calls on what data is included and excluded and also how the various sources are weighted.
In the post-training phase, also known as fine tuning, model creators can use different techniques to guide a model. One method, known as reinforcement learning from human feedback, works by telling a model which kinds of answers are preferred.
Another method is to provide additional system-level prompts that change the way an answer appears. This is a blunt tool that risks unintended consequences, like when Meta and Google tried to counteract bias and ended up generating implausible and historically inaccurate images—like Black founding fathers and diverse Nazi soldiers.
"Besides anecdotal evidence, little public knowledge exists about what goes into post-training these models," Srivastav said. "However, when it comes to system prompts, there are ways to jailbreak the prompt and look at what the model creator/API provider wants to have."
Between the lines: Meta's move set off alarm bells for researchers and human rights groups, who worry that Meta appears to be steering Llama to the right.
"It's a pretty blatant ideological play to effectively make overtures to the Trump administration," said Alex Hanna, director of research at the Distributed AI Research Institute.
Further, Meta and Grok have positioned themselves as models that will answer questions others refuse, a stance that worries some AI experts.
Meta has not only stated this as a goal, but also indicated that it has made progress with Llama 4, which it says "refuses less on debated political and social topics overall (from 7% in Llama 3.3 to below 2%)."
However, Allen Institute senior researcher Jesse Dodge says this isn't such a good thing.
"Refusals are an important part of building a model and having a model that's usable to lots of people," he said. "I don't know why they would advertise that it refuses a lot less."
The intrigue: While Meta and Grok accuse other AI models of having a left-leaning bias, experts say that the reality is more complex.
Much of the bias stems from the training data. While most of the major models don't disclose their specific data sets, it's generally understood at this point that the major models have scraped most of the Internet that isn't behind a paywall.
Because much of that training data is in English, specifically the American dialect, AI models tend to be biased toward the perspectives captured in that language.
Zoom in: GLAAD, the LGBTQ+ rights organization, told Axios that it has already noticed Llama 4 making reference to discredited conversion therapy practices in some queries.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Political violence is threaded through recent U.S. history. The motives and justifications vary
The assassination of one Democratic Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband and the shooting of another lawmaker and his wife at their homes are just the latest addition to a long and unsettling roll call of political violence in the United States. The list, in the last two months alone: the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, D.C.; the firebombing of a Colorado march calling for the release of Israeli hostages; and the firebombing of the official residence of Pennsylvania's governor — on a Jewish holiday while he and his family were inside. Here is a sampling of other attacks before that — the assassination of a healthcare executive on the streets of New York City late last year; the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a Pennsylvania rally during his presidential campaign last year; the 2022 attack on the husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) by a believer in right-wing conspiracy theories; and the 2017 shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) by a gunman at a congressional softball game practice. 'We've entered into this especially scary time in the country where it feels the sort of norms and rhetoric and rules that would tamp down on violence have been lifted,' said Matt Dallek, a political scientist at Georgetown University who studies extremism. 'A lot of people are receiving signals from the culture.' Politics have also driven large-scale massacres. Gunmen who killed 11 worshipers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, 23 shoppers at a heavily Latino Walmart in El Paso in 2019 and 10 Black people at a Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store in 2022 each cited the conspiracy theory that a secret cabal of Jews was trying to replace white people with people of color. That has become a staple on parts of the right that support Trump's push to limit immigration. The Anti-Defamation League found that from 2022 through 2024, all of the 61 political killings in the United States were committed by right-wing extremists. That changed on the first day of 2025, when a Texas man flying the flag of the Islamic State group killed 14 people by driving his truck through a crowded New Orleans street before being fatally shot by police. 'You're seeing acts of violence from all different ideologies,' said Jacob Ware, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who researches terrorism. 'It feels more random and chaotic and more frequent.' The United States has a long and grim history of political violence, including presidential assassinations dating to the killing of President Abraham Lincoln, lynchings and other violence aimed at Black people in the South, and the 1954 shooting inside Congress by four Puerto Rican nationalists. Experts say the last few years, however, have reached a level not seen since the tumultuous days of the 1960s and 1970s, when political leaders the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., President Kennedy, Malcolm X and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. Ware noted that the most recent surge comes after the new Trump administration has closed units that focus on investigating white supremacist extremism and pushed federal law enforcement to spend less time on anti-terrorism and more on detaining people who are in the country illegally. 'We're at the point, after these six weeks, where we have to ask about how effectively the Trump administration is combating terrorism,' Ware said. One of Trump's first acts in office was to pardon those involved in the largest act of domestic political violence this century — the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob intended to prevent Congress from certifying Trump's 2020 election loss. Those pardons broadcast a signal to would-be extremists on either side of the political debate, Dallek said: 'They sent a very strong message that violence, as long as you're a Trump supporter, will be permitted and may be rewarded.' Often, those who engage in political violence don't have clearly defined ideologies that easily map onto the country's partisan divides. A man who died after he detonated a car bomb outside a Palm Springs fertility clinic last month left writings urging people not to procreate and expressed what the FBI called 'nihilistic ideations.' But each political attack seems to inspire partisans to find evidence the attacker is on the other side. Little was known about the man police identified as a suspect in the Minnesota attacks, 57-year-old Vance Boelter. Authorities say they found a list of other apparent targets that included other Democratic officials, abortion clinics and abortion rights advocates, as well as fliers for the day's anti-Trump 'No Kings' parades. Conservatives online seized on the fliers — and the fact that Boelter had apparently once been reappointed to a state workforce development board by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz — to claim the suspect must be a liberal. 'The far left is murderously violent,' billionaire Elon Musk posted on his social media site, X. It was reminiscent of the fallout from the attack on Paul Pelosi, the former House speaker's then-82-year-old husband, who was seriously injured by a man wielding a hammer. Right-wing figures falsely theorized the assailant was a secret lover rather than what authorities said he was: a believer in pro-Trump conspiracy theories who broke into the Pelosi home echoing Jan. 6 rioters who broke into the Capitol by saying: 'Where is Nancy?!' No prominent Republican ever denounced the Pelosi assault, and GOP leaders including Trump joked about the attack at public events in its aftermath. On Saturday, Nancy Pelosi posted a statement on X decrying the Minnesota attack. 'All of us must remember that it's not only the act of violence, but also the reaction to it, that can normalize it,' she wrote. After mocking the Pelosis after the 2022 attack, Trump on Saturday joined in the bipartisan condemnation of the Minnesota shootings, calling them 'horrific violence.' The president has, however, consistently broken new ground with his bellicose rhetoric toward his political opponents, whom he routinely calls 'sick' and 'evil,' and has talked repeatedly about how violence is needed to quell protests. The Minnesota attack occurred after Trump took the extraordinary step of mobilizing the military to try to control protests against his administration's immigration operations in Los Angeles during the last week, when he pledged to 'HIT' disrespectful protesters and warned of a 'migrant invasion' of the city. Dallek said Trump has been 'both a victim and an accelerant' of the charged, dehumanizing political rhetoric that is flooding the country. 'It feels as if the extremists are in the saddle,' he said, 'and the extremists are the ones driving our rhetoric and politics.' Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.


Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
What Investors Should Know As Meta Gets (Back) Into Crypto
Meta (formerly Facebook) is getting back into crypto Markets and investment trends tend to move in cycles, and the cryptoasset sector is no exception to this rule of the marketplace. As TradFi institutions continue to deploy blockchain affiliated projects, including the launch of a stablecoin by SocGen running on the Ethereum blockchain, the adoption and acceleration of cryptoassets continues virtually unabated. Even as the sentiment toward crypto improves, prices of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies increase, and the policy landscape pivots toward a pro-growth outlook there remain significant obstacles to mainstream utilization. For example, the tax treatment of crypto is an inhibitor to retail utilization of crypto as a method of payment, and the lack of insurance available for crypto and crypto-adjacent products can make it difficult for institutions to allocate substantial funds to cryptoassets. Against this landscape, exemplified both the increasing adoption and understanding of cryptoassets and applications with the continued limitations to institutional usage, one company stands apart for several reasons. Meta (formerly Facebook) recently has been questioned by Senators Warren and Blumenthal related to its support for the GENIUS Act, and specifically whether or not the firm would block a prohibition on Big Tech firms from owning stablecoin issuers. The specifics of the questioning by the senators will most assuredly change over time, but the letter that has been made publicly available detail that the senators desire specifics as to what the stablecoin plans for Meta are. Let's take a look at why this letter and these questions are important, not only for Meta, but for the cryptoasset marketplace at large. Meta, then operating as Facebook, already attempted to launch of a native stablecoin in 2019 via the Libra project which was subsequently rebranded as Diem. This previous effort occurred during an entirely different economic and policy landscape, and occurred as the organization was still contending with intense scrutiny following the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Issues that were raised at the time dealt with the potential of a stablecoin issued by Facebook serving to weaken competition, compromise user privacy, and lead to continued fractionalization of which entity or organization sets policy for U.S. monetary and fiscal policy. While the cryptoasset landscape and policy outlook for crypto projects has definitively shifted to a more permissive stance the very same issues that were raised during 2019 loom large as Meta returns to the stablecoin marketplace. Specifically, the letter from the Senators cited the track record of privacy violations, scams, and fake news that continue to occur on the platform as risks that a native stablecoin could amplify. Even as stablecoins increasingly become more mainstream, and are approaching a market capitalization nearing $300 billion, Meta might find many of the same issues that stymied earlier efforts being dragged back to the surface. Since Meta is one of the few returning players to the stablecoin space this provides an opportunity for crypto native stablecoins such as Circle, which continues to ride high following its IPO in June. As Meta edges closer to launching its own stablecoin, the spotlight on Big Tech's role in digital money is about to get a lot brighter, especially as these same tech firms continue to invest billions in AI initiatives. For crypto-native firms like Circle, that's not a threat - it's an opportunity. Meta's sheer size and complicated history with data privacy all but guarantee it will draw intense regulatory scrutiny. And that scrutiny will set a new bar for how stablecoins are viewed and governed both in the U.S. and abroad. That's where Circle can shine. Unlike tech giants pivoting into payments, Circle was built in crypto — with regulatory engagement and transparency as core pillars. While Meta faces inevitable trust questions and regulatory hurdles, Circle can double down on its position as the safer, more compliant alternative. In the coming months, expect firms like Circle to lean into this advantage, especially as institutional partners and consumers alike grow more cautious about Big Tech controlling their money. Notably, the ongoing partnership between Circle and Coinbase – two of the largest crypto native firms that are publicly traded in the U.S. – can also serve to assuage concerns of policymakers. Regardless of this specific stablecoin project plays out the following reality is becoming increasingly clear, and some would say urgent, for the crypto marketplace. With tens of billions flowing into the sector, TradFi firms deploying blockchain based solutions and native stablecoins, and policymakers actively debating the GENIUS Act, the crypto audit and attestation narrative continues to seem stuck. While the AICPA continues to issue guidance and updates related to digital asset attestation, controls, and valuation, the authoritative standard setters remain behind the proverbial curve. As stablecoins become more important and integrated with payment, treasury, and lending systems the urgency for definitive and standardized auditing best practices will continue to elevate in importance.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Google, Meta and Snap think this tech is the next big thing
Silicon Valley thinks it's finally found the next big thing in tech: smart glasses – the same thing Google tried (and failed at) more than a decade ago. But Google Glass may simply have been ahead of its time. Now tech companies believe technology has finally caught up, thanks in part to artificial intelligence—and they're going all-in on truly 'smart' glasses that can see and answer questions about the world around you. The latest example: Snap announced this past week it's building AI-equipped eyewear to be released in 2026. The renewed buzz around smart glasses is likely the combination of two trends: a realization that smartphones are no longer exciting enough to entice users to upgrade often and a desire to capitalize on AI by building new hardware around it. That's why, although smart glasses aren't entirely new, advancements in AI could make them far more useful than the first time around. Emerging AI models can process images, video and speech simultaneously, answer complicated requests and respond conversationally. And that could make smart glasses finally worth wearing. 'AI is making these devices a lot easier to use, and it's also introducing new ways people can use them,' said Jitesh Ubrani, a research manager covering wearable devices for market research firm The International Data Corporation. Google, Snap, Meta and Amazon have previously released glasses with cameras, speakers and voice assistants. But the Google Glass of a decade ago never caught on. The screen was tiny, the battery life was short and the 'glasses' themselves were expensive and unfashionable. More modern glasses like Amazon's Echo Frames, Meta's original Ray-Ban Stories and early versions of Snap's Spectacles made it easier to listen to music or take photos hands-free. Yet these still didn't do anything you couldn't already do with a smartphone. This newer crop of smart glasses is far more sophisticated. For example, when I tried prototype glasses based on Google's software last year, I asked Google's Gemini assistant to provide cocktail ideas based on liquor bottles I had been looking at on a shelf. The glasses will also remember what you've seen and answer questions based on that: During its I/O developers conference in May, a Google employee asked Gemini for the name of a coffee shop printed on a cup she has looked at earlier. With the Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses, users can perform tasks like asking whether a pepper they're looking at in a grocery store is spicy or translate conversations between languages in real time. Two million pairs have been sold since their 2023 debut, Ray-Ban parent company EssilorLuxottica said in February. 'There's been several years of various failed attempts,' said Andrew Zignani, senior research director of ABI Research's Strategic Technologies team. 'But there's finally now some good concepts of what's working.' And market research indicates the interest will be there this time. The smart glasses market is estimated to grow from 3.3 million units shipped in 2024 to nearly 13 million by 2026, according to ABI Research. The International Data Corporation projects the market for smart glasses like those made by Meta will grow from 8.8 in 2025 to nearly 14 million in 2026. Snap didn't reveal many details about its forthcoming 'Specs' glasses but did say they will 'understand the world around you. 'The tiny smartphone limited our imagination,' Snap wrote in a blog post announcing the glasses. 'It forced us to look down at a screen, instead of up at the world.' Apple is also said to be working on smart glasses to be released next year that would compete directly with Meta's, according to Bloomberg. Amazon's head of devices and services Panos Panay also didn't rule out the possibility of camera-equipped Alexa glasses similar to those offered by Meta in a February CNN interview. 'But I think you can imagine, there's going to be a whole slew of AI devices that are coming,' he said in February. AI assistant apps, like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Search and Gemini apps, are already laying the foundation for smart glasses by using your phone's camera to answer questions about your surroundings. OpenAI is putting its tech in everything from a mysterious new gadget co-designed by Apple veteran Jony Ive to future Mattel toys. Google said last month that it would bring more camera use to its search app, a sign that it sees this technology as being key to the way people find information in the future. Apple this past week announced updates to its Visual Intelligence tool that let users ask questions about content on their iPhone's screen, in addition to their surroundings, by using its camera. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently reiterated his belief that smart glasses could become critical to how people use technology during testimony in a federal antitrust case. 'A big bet that we have at the company is that a lot of the way that people interact with content in the future is going to be increasingly through different AI mediums, and eventually through smart glasses and holograms,' he said in April. Still, tech giants need to get regular people to buy in. This includes potential privacy concerns, which played a big role in Google Glass' demise. Recording video with camera-equipped glasses is more subtle than holding up your phone, although Meta and Google's glasses have a light on the front to let other people know when a wearer is capturing content. Perhaps the biggest challenge will be convincing consumers that they need yet another tech device in their life, particularly those who don't need prescription glasses. The products need to be worth wearing on people's faces all day. And these devices likely won't come cheap. Meta's Ray-Bans usually cost around $300, roughly the price of a smartwatch. While that's not nearly as expensive as the $3,500 Apple Vision Pro headset, it still may be a tough sell as people spend less on ancillary tech products. Global smartwatch shipments fell for the first time in March, according to Counterpoint Research, perhaps a sign that customers aren't spending as much on devices they may not view as essential. Yet tech firms are willing to make that bet to avoid missing out on what could be the next blockbuster tech product. 'Many in the industry believe that the smartphone will eventually be replaced by glasses or something similar to it,' said Ubrani the IDC analyst. 'It's not going to happen today. It's going to happen many years from now, and all these companies want to make sure that they're not going to miss out on that change.'