When controlled, the answer provided by ChatGPT is saying that it cannot answer. There is no ground to pretend that the "however" is something that has been hard-coded to, on purpose, bias the answer. This seems totally inconsistent with what is said before: it is said that there are more often "however" for pro-fossil fuel answer than for pro-renewables BUT that there are some "however" for renewables too. So, it would means that ChatGPT outputs would be tuned to create some "however" for pro-renewables too, which means that the ChatGPT tuners are both pro-left-wing and pro-right-wing in a stupid way where they undo in one hand what they are doing in the other.

On the other hand, there is a logical explanation: the "however" unbalance is the result of the content of the training, not of some sort of "unbiais of the AI": the "however" are more common when, on the internet, you find more "however" when people talk about this subject.

In this case, my point is that it is not "politically unbiased", it is just "rational": if, for a given subject, experts and rational people end up saying "however", it is biased to tune ChatGPT to avoid "however" in these cases or to artificially add "however" in the other direction just because one wants to artificially makes the reality looks like the two sides are equal when they are not.

> To your point about misinformation. The problem, fundamentally, is a difference in priority.

That's not my point. My point is that, at some point, fossil fuels industries were, it's an obvious fact, biased. It's an obvious fact: people will NOT shoot themselves in the foot by presenting their sale pitch in a realistic way when they can present it without lying but still by minimizing the disadvantages and maximizing the advantages.

There is no reason this would not have happened for renewables, the only reason is circumstantial: the fossil fuel industry was dominating the market.

> In this case, it seems that sustainability and decentralization are pitted against reliability and energy density. But what this really means is that some people are worried about the future, and some people need solutions now.

I'm working in the energy sector, and I'm not the one providing any solutions myself (so, I don't care, I am neither pro-renewable or pro-fossil fuel). What I see is that fossil fuels are seen more and more as unreliable (recently, the Ukraine crisis demonstrated that they are not reliable). I don't think that the dichotomy that you depict is real.

> And then those twisted facts become misinformation, when viewed from opposing priorities.

This is true that people have different priorities, but it is not what I'm talking about. Misinformation is not "a matter of point of view", they are intellectual dishonesty. For example, the fossil fuel industry WAS informed about the pollution very early in the process (sometimes with studies they pay themselves and choose to not publish while they were publishing other studies that were going to their direction). When someone was saying "I have different priorities, for me, I would like to know about the future consequences" (which is a question that the public is asking since the beginning of the ecologist movement in the 60s), they have answered "don't worry about it", WHILE THEY KNEW THAT, FOR THE PRIORITY EXPLICITLY STATED BY THEIR INTERLOCUTOR, THIS ANSWER WAS NOT TRUE.

> Which is why, if you make claims like "I think it is just a factual reality that finding arguments to pretend that fossil fuels are superior to renewable is just more difficult, simply because fossil fuels are indeed problematic" without also clarifying your priorities in the matter, you're simply adding more misinformation to the pile.

I disagree with that: nowadays, it does not matter what are the priorities. I see people who are interested in "solution for the future", and I see people who are interested in "pragmatic solution right now", and both are thinking that fossil fuels is not pragmatical, for the future AND right now.

> (If you're wondering where I stand? Renewables are great - but don't legislate them before they're actually ready and able to take over completely from fossil fuels.)

Then you are not "pragmatical right now", because pragmatically, both the market and the experts are showing that we need legislation to unlock huge potential, unfairly blocked by companies that have distorted the free market.

Also, you have not at all commented on the fact that pro-fossil fuel has nothing to do with right-wing ideology. It is indeed linked to the right-wing side, but the main reason is that the right-wing side has supported these solutions partially because the renewables were first promoted by the left-wing side, and partially because right-wing electors had financial interest in fossil fuel industry.

So, again, my summary:

1) The number of "however" is not a result of people tuning ChatGPT, it's the result that, when, on the internet, someone talks about the advantages of the fossil fuel, this person is more often also adding a "however".

2) The reason these people add "however" is because the fossil fuel industry has been intellectually dishonest when presenting the advantages of the fossil fuels. The pro-renewables may have done the same, but they did not had the weight of the very rich and dominating fossil fuel industry market and therefore their intellectually dishonest depictions did not affect the debate as much as the pro-fossil fuel ones.

3) The reason it appears to be "biased for US progressive ideology" is circumstantial: it is not biased, it just appears that intellectual dishonesty has a stronger impact when done by people who have decision power, and these people tends to support conservative point of view (so, the Republicans tend to align with their interest, in order to represent their electors). For example, nothing in the fossil fuel point of view is typically right-wing. But fossil fuels is associated with right-wing because right-wing take the opposite stance of left-wing and powerful electors were more pro-fossil fuels because it was in their interest.