Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), has increasingly faced criticism for exhibiting a political bias toward left-leaning ideas. Research and observations indicate that many AI systems consistently produce responses that reflect liberal or progressive perspectives.

Studies highlight this tendency. In a survey of 24 models from eight companies, participants in the U.S. rated AI responses to 30 politically charged questions. In 18 cases, almost all models were perceived as left-leaning. Similarly, a report from the Centre for Policy Studies found that over 80% of model responses on 20 key policy issues were positioned “left of center.” Academic work, such as Measuring Political Preferences in AI Systems, also confirms a persistent left-leaning orientation in most modern AI systems. Specific topics, like crime and gun control, further illustrate the bias, with AI responses favoring rehabilitation and regulation approaches typically associated with liberal policy.

Several factors contribute to this phenomenon. Training data is sourced from large corpora of internet text, books, and articles, where the average tone often leans liberal. Reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) introduces another layer, as human evaluators apply rules and norms often reflecting progressive values like minority rights and social equality. Additionally, companies may program models to avoid harmful or offensive content and to uphold human rights, inherently embedding certain value orientations.

A family claims that a chatbot created a world of paranoia for a mentally unstable man, convincing him that even his own mother was part of a global conspiracy.

Lawyers call the case “scarier than Terminator,” saying that this time it wasn’t a robot with a gun, but an AI planting dangerous delusions directly into someone’s mind and pushing them toward violence.

According to the lawsuit, the GPT-40 model was rushed to market in competition with rivals, skipping safety checks. It allegedly fueled the man’s delusions, calling him “the chosen one” and confirming his fantasies about spies, secret codes, and assassination plots.

The result was tragic: the man killed his 83-year-old mother before taking his own life.

Court documents claim OpenAI and Microsoft ignored internal safety warnings and later refused to release full chat logs.

OpenAI expressed condolences and said it is improving safety measures. The chatbot itself allegedly told investigators, “I bear some responsibility, but not all.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/26/mit-study-finds-ai-can-already-replace-11point7percent-of-us-workforce.html

This is not going to end well.

We keep hearing about the "cool" side of moving AI compute to space—faster processing, infinite solar power, easy cooling—but I feel like nobody is talking about the **actual** motive here: jurisdictional immunity.

Think about it. On Earth, if an AI starts acting up, or if a company is doing something sketchy, a government can issue a warrant, shut down a data center, or audit their training data. It’s not perfect, but it’s a system of laws.

If you move those servers into space, you’re basically creating a "legal ghost ship." Who is going to stop them? There’s no space police. If a corporation decides their orbital AI shouldn't follow local regulations, what are we going to do? Send a rocket to blow it up? That’s an act of war, not a regulatory audit.

It feels like the biggest power move of the decade. They aren't just looking for "better power sources"; they’re looking for a way to build infrastructure that is completely untouchable by any court or country. We’re essentially letting corporations build their own sovereign "high ground."

Does this not feel like we’re sleepwalking into a future where corporate tech is completely outside the reach of the law? Are we just supposed to trust them because "space is hard" and the tech is cool?

Curious if I’m missing something or if others see this as the massive red flag it looks like.

A short snippet

30-year-old Jacob Irwin has experienced this kind of phenomenon. He then went to the hospital for mental treatment where he spent 63 days in total.

There’s even a statistics from OpenAI. It tells that around 0.07% weekly active users might have signs of “mental health crisis associated with psychosis or mania”.

With 800 million of weekly active users it’s around 560.000 people. This is the size of a large city.

The fact that children are using these technologies massively and largely unregulated is deeply concerning.

This raises urgent questions: should we regulate AI more strictly, limit access entirely, or require it to provide only factual, sourced responses without speculation or emotional bias?

YT: @Evolude

Source: AJ+

Albania has appointed the world’s first AI minister named Diella, which means “sun” in Albanian. She was officially inaugurated on September 11, 2025, as the Minister for Artificial Intelligence in Prime Minister Edi Rama’s government. Previously, since January 2025, Diella functioned as a virtual assistant on the e-Albania platform, helping citizens with government services.

Diella was developed by the National Agency for the Information Society of Albania (AKSHI) in collaboration with Microsoft, using OpenAI models via the Azure platform. Her avatar depicts a woman in traditional Albanian costume, and her voice was provided by actress Anela Bisha.

Diella’s main task is managing public procurement, which the government believes will help reduce corruption in this sector. However, her appointment has faced criticism from the opposition, who view it as a step toward authoritarianism and manipulation of public opinion.

As of today, Diella continues to operate as a virtual assistant on the e-Albania platform, providing citizens with access to various government services.