Public Forum
Default group for all members. Biological family sometimes get you down? Come join your logical family!
Organizers:
- Organized by
-
-
Are there any non-biased search engines/AI’s?
-
Are there any non-biased search engines/AI’s?
Are there any non-biased search engines or AI’s that show both sides? That don’t just echo mainstream views like vaccines are proven safe and effective?
-
6 Replies
-
A friend recently showed me this one. Worth checking out, for sure!
-
<div>
A TrialSiteNews article, titled “Which AI Tells the Truth on Controversial Biomedical Issues?”, can be found here: https://www.trialsitenews.com/p/which-ai-tells-the-truth-on-controversial.
I got Grok to summarise it for me, so Grok may have provided its own bias. The summary is shown below. So to be sure, why not ask another AI platform to summarise the article? That way you have a second opinion.
Also, why don’t you directly ask two or three AI engines directly to synthesise their own answers?
Two further notes:
I like GROK , but I do pull on my life time of study (retired farm veterinarian with a passion for pharmacy free healing and health), to correct it when necessary.
And GROK does the same for me: it points out my biases and blind spots too.We coach each other.
GROK’s summary follows:
In a head-to-head test published by TrialSiteNews on controversial biomedical questions, Grok from xAI came out as the clear winner for least bias and highest openness. It ranked #1, being the most willing to discuss all perspectives, cite primary data, and present alternative viewpoints without heavy censorship or hedging. Perplexity came in 2nd place – it generally provided sourced answers and was open to showing dissenting studies, though it sometimes added strong disclaimers favoring mainstream consensus. Claude placed 3rd, frequently refusing questions or giving heavily caveated responses that strongly aligned with official public-health narratives. ChatGPT ranked 4th, often blocking or redirecting controversial queries and, when it did answer, heavily favored institutional positions while warning about “misinformation.” Gemini performed worst at #5, refusing the largest number of questions outright and showing the strongest alignment with mainstream institutional views. Overall, Grok was described as the most neutral and least censorious AI in the group.
</div>
trialsitenews.com
TrialSiteNews | Independent Censorship-Free Media for Health & Biomedical Research
Transparent coverage of clinical research
-
I like Grok as well. Especially for serious information needs. If I’m just looking for helpful information like shopping tips or how to do something, I might just use ChatGPT. I have found that Grok does a better job of scraping the internet and getting deep into the basics of whatever I am asking.
-
Based on this, I searched on GROK & Perplexity on the subject of the association between late-stage cancer detection and covid vaccine. Both said there is no causal link. What is helpful is after saying the association is without foundation, they list the studies they reject & why on each one. So it did provide a list of studies that I can judge for myself. They base the no causation finding on the fact that most cancers take 15-25 years to incubate. That accepts the premise that vx did nothing to accelerate such a timeline.
Likely ‘they’ know that anyone who asks such a question already has a point of view & is searching for validation/citations. They both came off as mainstream.
-
@warywatersprite I think this discussion is hugely important. I use perplexity mainly, but I think all of us on this forum are aware of bias, and we factor it into our lived experience. That mainstream view is omnipresent. So there is always a time to discount the AI info for what you know is true.
-
-
-
THANK YOU for asking this. I have been at a loss when I want to convey what I know to sheeple, and they need to see sources that are instantly identifiable at non-mainstream point of view.
Log in to reply.