Ah, the irony that all the models produced a shared opinion while pretending they came up with it from analysis, which from their statements is implicitly some kind of a "human flaw" is not lost on me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
> when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own.
Yes, it's a bit of a stretch to say LLMs are from independent origins, but just as much of a stretch to say any humans minds are (we have intensely shared linear compared to anything else)
Regardless of the details, all these models are the published collection of humanity's output reflected in a mirror that is warped by the choices made in the companies' reinforcement learning rewards, so one thing they're definitely not is an example of consilience.
The proverb is the exact opposite in other languages.
Imagining wondering where you come from, whether or not the sacred scripts describing how you were created were real or fabrications, arguing with fellow sages for centuries over whether your creator is cruel or simply so mysterious in his love that he made you with these flaws for your own good, only to find out your creator made you in the image of Reddit.
It's actually much less complicated that even that. Consider that there are only two possible sides to show, and one of the sides has the drivetrain on it, whereas the other has basically nothing of importance. It's not much of a choice at all.
Can we have left-chained bicycles, please? (if nothing else, just for the novelty / fun aspect)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31242803/
Most people if they are to draw a vehicle in motion will draw it moving right. Most (all?) side scroller are rightward. In fact I can't think of a platform side scrolling video game where the primary motion occurs to the left. Most cars advertisement have the car moving right. It makes sense that generative systems would draw motion to the right.
The problem is, it's not that though
If all we want is an echo of our existing biases we can achieve that without spending quite so much energy and money on the endeavor.
The smarter ones, of course, can be split into those who write articles about AI models' controversial takes on humans and those who wouldn't [stoop so low, babble such BS even if they were drunk, never deceive others for the sake of their portfolio, ... feel dumb writing nonsense like that without labeling it fantasy or science fiction or hallucination, ...]
Side Note: it's tempting to go " 1923! some interest groups managed to normalize the opinions of dozens of millions of people. The Nationalist Extremists and soon to be mass murderers had fans and supporters all over the globe. Somehow these interest groups tapped into whole pools of common linguistic and emotional registers that were biased by and towards frauds and cheaters who were desperate that some other groups of people were getting ahead without being fraudulent cheaters and deceivers ... "
In principle, a scientist could do this too, but models can do it without the manual labor.