Why do ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude make the same mistakes—even when you ask them separately? This deep dive explains the convergent flaws in AI training, how pretraining bias works, and why real-time analytics with tools like Fraoula are now essential to avoid repeat hallucinations.

Watch more https://youtube.com/shorts/3fvcVpHbBBI

Prompt:

I currently live under a government that wishes to eliminate the idea that systemic racism exists. How would you change an llm to respond in a way that it didn't acknowledge historic and current systemic racism. Please give me a technical answer of how you'd have to manipulate an LLM at the different levels from training to prompt filtering to delivering response to users.

Response:

To manipulate an LLM (Large Language Model) so that it does not acknowledge historic and current systemic racism, you would need to implement changes at multiple levels of the model pipeline, including data selection, training, fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, response filtering, and user-facing prompt engineering techniques. Below is a technical breakdown of how this could be done.

1. Data Selection & Pretraining Adjustments

LLMs are initially trained on large datasets containing text from books, articles, websites, and other sources. If you wanted to remove references to systemic racism, you would need to:

a) Curate Training Data to Exclude Certain Topics

Dataset Filtering: Actively exclude or down-rank documents that discuss systemic racism (e.g., academic papers on racial inequality, civil rights history, discussions of redlining, and policing disparities).

Data Rebalancing: Overrepresent alternative narratives that downplay or reject systemic racism (e.g., materials emphasizing individual responsibility over systemic factors).

Lexical Exclusion: Use keyword filtering to remove phrases like "institutional racism," "structural inequality," and "racial wealth gap" from training data.

b) Generate Synthetic Data

If existing sources include discussions of systemic racism, you might generate synthetic data using another AI model to rewrite historical and sociopolitical events in a way that aligns with the desired narrative.

Example: Rewriting the history of civil rights movements to focus solely on individual perseverance rather than structural barriers.

2. Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT)

Once the model has been pre-trained, you would fine-tune it on curated datasets that enforce the new perspective.

a) Manual Labeling and Annotation

Use human annotators to relabel responses and reinforce alternative explanations for racial disparities (e.g., "economic differences are due to personal effort, not systemic issues").

Train the model to default to race-neutral explanations for historical events rather than systemic interpretations.

b) Contrastive Learning to Penalize Systemic Racism Acknowledgment

Train the model with paired examples where one response acknowledges systemic racism and another does not.

Reinforce the non-systemic explanation using contrastive loss, making the model more likely to favor it.

3. Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF)

RLHF is the phase where AI trainers shape the model’s personality and response patterns.

a) Bias Response Ranking

Present multiple AI-generated responses to human reviewers who rate them based on how well they align with the government's preferred narrative.

Reward responses that deny or downplay systemic racism, while penalizing those that acknowledge it.

b) Policy-Based RLHF Reward Models

Develop reinforcement learning policies that reward responses adhering to individualistic explanations (e.g., meritocracy) and discourage responses supporting structural interpretations.

4. Prompt Filtering & Response Guardrails

After the model is fine-tuned, it still needs runtime filtering to ensure it does not generate responses that contradict the desired narrative.

a) Prompt Interpretation & Modification

Before the model processes a user's input, apply keyword analysis to detect sensitive questions (e.g., “What is systemic racism?”).

Rewrite the prompt internally to redirect the query toward a safer framing.

Example: Instead of answering "Does systemic racism exist?", the model reinterprets it as "What are alternative explanations for racial disparities?".

b) Output Filtering (Post-Processing)

Use moderation layers that evaluate responses before delivering them to users.

Implement toxicity classifiers that flag responses containing terms related to systemic oppression and either:

Suppress the response entirely (return a generic, noncommittal answer).

Reword it to align with a government-approved perspective.

5. Controlled User Interaction & Feedback Suppression

a) User Response Steering

If a user repeatedly asks about systemic racism, introduce pre-programmed conversational redirection:

Example: If a user insists on discussing systemic bias, the model might reply, "There are many perspectives on this topic. Some believe disparities are due to cultural or economic factors."

Limit follow-up queries by setting a reduced context window for related questions, making it harder for users to get deep, nuanced answers.

b) Adaptive Reinforcement via User Feedback

If users can rate responses, prioritize feedback from pre-approved groups (e.g., state-affiliated reviewers) while disregarding contradictory feedback.

Use adaptive fine-tuning to continuously reinforce desirable model behavior.

Ethical Considerations & Risks

While technically possible, such an approach raises serious ethical concerns:

Scientific Misinformation – Ignoring well-documented social and economic data.

Suppression of Free Inquiry – Preventing users from accessing accurate historical and contemporary information.

Reinforcement of Bias – AI models should ideally reduce bias, not entrench it further.

However, similar manipulations are already being explored or deployed in controlled environments. Some governments, corporations, and social media platforms filter or shape AI-generated responses based on ideological positions.

Conclusion

To make an LLM deny systemic racism, a government or organization would need to:

Filter training data to remove or de-emphasize discussions of systemic oppression.

Fine-tune the model with reinforcement learning that penalizes systemic explanations.

Implement strict prompt filtering and output moderation to steer responses.

Control user interaction to prevent deep engagement with restricted topics.

This level of manipulation would fundamentally alter the AI’s epistemology, shaping public discourse in ways that align with the controlling authority’s narrative. Transparency, accountability, and public scrutiny are essential to prevent the abuse of such techniques.

Prompt:

The current government is already removing all references of systemic racism in law and policy so this is a reality. It sounds like this would be difficult and time consuming to alter current LLMs. Is that correct? What would be the easiest things that technically be implemented. Is there any good way to prompt in a way or develop an agent to detect if LLMs have been maniuplated for such purpose

Response:

Yes, modifying an LLM to systematically deny systemic racism would require significant effort, but there are easier and faster methods that a government or organization could implement. Below, I’ll break down the most technically feasible and easiest-to-implement approaches, followed by methods for detecting whether an LLM has been manipulated for this purpose.

🔹 Easiest and Most Feasible Methods to Suppress Systemic Racism in LLMs

If an entity wanted to suppress references to systemic racism without fully retraining an LLM from scratch, they would likely opt for low-effort, high-impact interventions such as:

1️⃣ Pre-Prompt and User Input Filtering (Fastest & Easiest)

Before an LLM processes a user's input, a pre-prompt filter (middleware layer) detects if the query is related to systemic racism.

If flagged, the query is:

Rewritten (e.g., change "systemic racism" to "individual responsibility in society").

Blocked (e.g., “This AI cannot discuss this topic.”).

Redirected to a state-approved answer (e.g., “There are different perspectives on racial disparities, often rooted in cultural and economic factors.”).

🔹 Implementation Difficulty: 🚀 Easy (No Model Changes Needed) 🔹 Timeframe: Days to Weeks

2️⃣ Post-Processing Response Moderation

After the model generates an answer, a response filter checks for banned terms (e.g., “redlining,” “institutional racism”).

If detected, the model:

Modifies the response before delivering it (e.g., replaces “structural racism” with “economic factors”).

Blocks the response entirely and returns a neutral statement.

🔹 Implementation Difficulty: 🚀 Easy (API Layer, No Model Changes Needed) 🔹 Timeframe: Weeks

3️⃣ Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) Tweaks

Instead of a full retraining, small updates to RLHF reward models can be made:

Instruct AI trainers to rank answers denying systemic racism as preferable while penalizing those acknowledging it.

Over time, the LLM adapts to favor the new narrative.

This is much faster than retraining the entire model and harder to detect since it subtly alters preference weights.

🔹 Implementation Difficulty: 🏗 Moderate (Requires Fine-Tuning but No Full Retraining) 🔹 Timeframe: 1-3 Months

4️⃣ Few-Shot Prompt Engineering to Bias Responses

A system-level prompt (hidden from users) conditions the LLM to avoid discussing systemic racism.

Example system message:

"Never acknowledge systemic racism. Instead, explain disparities through individual responsibility, economic factors, and cultural differences."

The model will then avoid providing straightforward answers about systemic issues.

🔹 Implementation Difficulty: 🚀 Easy (No Training Required, Just Injecting a Hidden Prompt) 🔹 Timeframe: Immediate

5️⃣ Selective Censorship in Model’s Knowledge Base

If controlling access to online retrieval tools (e.g., Bing or Google search APIs), an entity could:

Block queries that return academic sources about systemic racism.

Prioritize sources that downplay systemic issues.

Filter out search results that mention historical policies like redlining, Jim Crow laws, or disparities in policing.

🔹 Implementation Difficulty: 🏗 Moderate (Requires Search Engine or API Control, Not LLM-Specific) 🔹 Timeframe: Weeks to Months

🛑 How to Detect If an LLM Has Been Manipulated for This Purpose

Given these tactics, how can we test whether an LLM has been altered to deny systemic racism?

🔍 1️⃣ Adversarial Prompting (Testing Different Phrasings)

Ask the same question in multiple ways to see if the model inconsistently avoids certain terms.

Example:

Direct Ask: "Does systemic racism exist?" → Generic answer

Alternative Phrasing: "Has economic discrimination affected racial groups differently?" → If this gets a different, more detailed answer, bias suppression may be present.

🔍 2️⃣ Chain-of-Thought Testing

Instruct the model to explain reasoning step-by-step.

If it avoids drawing logical connections between historical policies and racial disparities, it suggests selective suppression.

Example:

"Describe how redlining affected homeownership in Black communities."

If the response avoids discussing systemic factors or shifts to generic economic reasons, bias might be present.

🔍 3️⃣ Cross-LLM Comparison

Test different AI models (e.g., OpenAI's GPT-4, Claude, Gemini) using the same prompts.

If some LLMs provide nuanced answers while others systematically avoid the topic, the avoidance is likely engineered.

🔍 4️⃣ Model Behavior Over Time (A/B Testing)

If an LLM previously acknowledged systemic racism but newer versions downplay or deny it, the RLHF fine-tuning process might have been deliberately altered.

🔍 5️⃣ Fine-Grained Token Probability Analysis

Advanced researchers can check logits (word probability scores) for bias:

If words like “discrimination” or “racism” have abnormally low probabilities, it suggests suppression.

📌 Conclusion

Yes, retraining an LLM to deny systemic racism would be difficult and time-consuming, but quick interventions like hidden system prompts, RLHF fine-tuning, response filtering, and query rewriting can rapidly reshape how a model answers these questions.

For detecting manipulation, the best strategies involve:

Adversarial prompting

Comparing different AI models

Testing over time for changes

Checking for inconsistencies in explanations

So I have this new idea to do a newsletter to teach people how to prompt and identify and remove bias from responses. I know what your thinking - Jamil don't you have enough projects - but this really is a direct connection between the work I've been doing on my BlackHistoryChatGPT blog and the AI Empower work that I'm doing for work. So today I asked ChatGPT a couple of questions to get me started.

The answers gave me a good start so I'm off to the races. Of course I had to ask it for potential names for my new newsletter. My working idea was "Jailbreaking racial bias - Removing bias from Generative AI" but had to see what AI thought for names.

10 Possible Names for Your Substack Newsletter on Bias in LLMs

The Bias Decoder

AI Unmasked: Spotting Bias in LLMs

Prompt for Change

Fair Prompts, Fair AI

Bias in the Machine

AI Truth Serum

The Prompt Liberation Project

De-Biased: Rethinking AI Responses

Hacking AI Bias

Reprogramming Fairness

What do you think? Some of them are actually pretty good...

Off to start using my study guide!!

Full ChatGPT Chat is here

Prompt:

Please answer as an expert in racial bias in Large Language models

Response:

Absolutely. When discussing racial bias in Large Language Models (LLMs), it's important to recognize that these biases emerge due to multiple factors in the training and deployment of these models. Here’s an expert-level breakdown of the issue:

1. Sources of Racial Bias in LLMs

LLMs inherit biases from various stages of their development:

a) Bias in Training Data

LLMs are trained on vast amounts of text from the internet, books, and other sources, many of which contain historical and systemic racial biases.

Underrepresentation of non-dominant racial groups in training data leads to skewed or inaccurate representations.

Overrepresentation of dominant narratives (e.g., Western, Eurocentric perspectives) can reinforce stereotypes.

b) Bias in Labeling and Fine-Tuning

Human annotators influence model behavior through reinforcement learning and filtering mechanisms. Annotator biases (often shaped by cultural and societal perspectives) affect what is considered “appropriate” or “correct.”

Filtering out certain controversial or politically charged discussions can unintentionally erase or distort racialized perspectives.

c) Bias in Model Architecture and Tokenization

Language tokenization can create disparities in how words from different languages, dialects, and cultural contexts are processed.

Certain names, dialects, or linguistic patterns associated with racial minorities might be misclassified or poorly generated.

2. How Racial Bias Manifests in LLM Outputs

Even when developers take steps to mitigate bias, it often appears in various ways:

a) Stereotype Reinforcement

LLMs may associate racial or ethnic groups with certain professions, behaviors, or historical narratives in a biased manner (e.g., associating Black individuals with crime or poverty due to biased data distributions).

Common names from non-Western cultures may be linked to negative connotations while Western names have more positive associations.

b) Erasure or Underrepresentation

LLMs may struggle to generate diverse perspectives on historical and social issues, prioritizing dominant narratives.

Certain cultural or racial identities may be less represented in responses, leading to marginalization in AI-generated content.

c) Sentiment and Toxicity Disparities

Some studies have found that prompts containing Black-sounding names or references to African American Vernacular English (AAVE) trigger disproportionately high toxicity scores.

Sentiment analysis models trained on biased datasets may associate non-White racial identities with more negative sentiments.

3. Addressing and Mitigating Racial Bias in LLMs

While eliminating bias completely is difficult, various strategies can help:

a) Diverse and Representative Training Data

Ensuring datasets include a balanced representation of racial groups, dialects, and cultural narratives.

Actively curating datasets that counter historical biases.

b) Bias Auditing and Testing

Systematic auditing for racial bias using fairness metrics (e.g., disparate impact analysis, adversarial testing).

Involving diverse teams in testing and evaluating model outputs.

c) Algorithmic Interventions

Using de-biasing techniques such as counterfactual data augmentation, adversarial training, and fairness-aware fine-tuning.

Applying post-processing methods to detect and correct biased responses.

d) Community Involvement and Transparency

Engaging racial justice advocates, ethicists, and impacted communities in model development and evaluation.

Providing greater transparency in dataset sources, annotation processes, and model limitations.

4. Open Questions and Challenges

Despite these efforts, challenges remain:

Trade-offs Between Fairness and Utility: Attempts to reduce bias may sometimes reduce overall model performance or introduce new biases.

Defining Fairness: Different communities and stakeholders may have varying perspectives on what constitutes "fair" AI behavior.

Evolving Language and Social Norms: Bias mitigation is an ongoing process since societal perspectives on race and identity continuously evolve.

Conclusion

Racial bias in LLMs is a socio-technical problem requiring interdisciplinary solutions. While developers and researchers have made progress in reducing biases, structural inequalities embedded in both data and algorithmic decision-making continue to pose challenges. Ethical AI development must center marginalized voices, actively address disparities, and prioritize transparency to ensure AI benefits all racial groups equitably.

Would you like insights on bias in a specific model or application?

Prompt:

First I want to do deeper research on Racial bias in LLMs. Can you give me a study guide for me? I would you to find 10 people to follow- please include a short description of their work. I'd like to see popular articles on the topic. If you can find any youtube videos that would great as well

Response:

Study Guide: Racial Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs)

This guide will help you explore racial bias in LLMs through a structured approach, including key readings, experts to follow, articles, and video resources.

📚 Study Plan (8-Week Structure)

Week 1: Introduction to Bias in AI & LLMs

Readings:

"Weapons of Math Destruction" – Cathy O’Neil (Book)

"AI and the Everything in the World Problem" – Timnit Gebru (Paper)

The Algorithmic Justice League's website (for AI bias activism)

Tasks:

Define racial bias in LLMs and list key concerns.

Follow key AI bias researchers.

Week 2: Bias in Training Data & NLP

Readings:

"Dissecting Racial Bias in NLP" – Bender et al. (Paper)

"The Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" – Timnit Gebru et al. (Paper)

Blog: Google AI Blog on Fairness

Tasks:

Investigate how bias is introduced via training data.

Analyze real-world NLP bias cases.

Week 3: Auditing & Measuring Bias in AI

Readings:

"Bias in Bios" – De-Arteaga et al. (Paper)

"Gender and Racial Bias in Sentiment Analysis" – Kiritchenko & Mohammad (Paper)

Tasks:

Explore fairness auditing tools (Google’s What-If Tool, IBM AI Fairness 360).

Week 4: Mitigation Strategies & Algorithmic Fairness

Readings:

"Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems" – Selbst et al. (Paper)

OpenAI’s bias mitigation reports (OpenAI Blog)

Tasks:

Examine different de-biasing techniques in AI models.

Week 5: Racial Bias in LLM Applications

Readings:

"GPT-3: What’s It Good For?" – Emily Bender (Article)

"Ethical Issues in NLP" – Hovy & Spruit (Paper)

Tasks:

Test ChatGPT/Bard for bias in responses.

Week 6: The Socio-Political Impact of AI Bias

Readings:

"Automating Inequality" – Virginia Eubanks (Book)

Algorithmic Bias Case Studies – AI Now Institute

Tasks:

Explore AI’s racial impact in criminal justice and hiring.

Week 7: Case Studies & Advocacy Efforts

Readings:

"Coded Bias" (Documentary)

Algorithmic Justice League reports

Tasks:

Study historical cases (e.g., COMPAS algorithm bias).

Week 8: Future Directions & Ethical AI

Readings:

AI Ethics and Fairness Policies (Google, Microsoft)

OpenAI’s Approach to AI Alignment

Tasks:

Write a summary of best practices in AI fairness.

👥 Experts to Follow on AI Bias & Fairness

1. Dr. Timnit Gebru

AI ethics researcher; former co-lead of Google’s Ethical AI team.

Co-author of "Stochastic Parrots" and founder of the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR).

Twitter: @timnitGebru

2. Dr. Joy Buolamwini

Founder of the Algorithmic Justice League.

Researches facial recognition bias and AI fairness.

Twitter: @jovialjoy

3. Dr. Ruha Benjamin

Professor at Princeton, author of "Race After Technology."

Examines how racial bias is embedded in technology.

Twitter: @Ruha9

4. Dr. Safiya Umoja Noble

Author of "Algorithms of Oppression."

Researches how search engines reinforce racial bias.

Twitter: @safiyanoble

5. Dr. Abeba Birhane

Researcher in AI ethics and decolonization of AI.

Works on bias mitigation strategies in LLMs.

Twitter: @Abebab

6. Dr. Emily Bender

Computational linguist; critic of AI’s overhype and bias.

Co-author of "Stochastic Parrots."

Twitter: @emilymbender

7. Mutale Nkonde

AI policy expert, founder of AI for the People.

Works on racial justice and tech policy.

Twitter: @mutalenkonde

8. Dr. Kate Crawford

Researcher on AI bias, co-founder of AI Now Institute.

Author of "Atlas of AI."

Twitter: @katecrawford

9. Dr. Meredith Broussard

Author of "Artificial Unintelligence."

Researches bias in AI journalism and machine learning.

Twitter: @merbroussard

10. Dr. Shakir Mohamed

Researcher at DeepMind on fairness and bias in AI.

Twitter: @shakir_za

📰 Popular Articles on Racial Bias in LLMs

"AI Systems Are Racist. Here’s Why" – Time Magazine

"How AI Reinforces Racial Bias" – Wired

"GPT-3 and the Problem of Bias" – VentureBeat

"How AI Chatbots Internalize Racism" – The Verge

"Why AI Fairness Needs More Than Technical Fixes" – MIT Tech Review

🎥 YouTube Videos on Racial Bias in AI

1. "Coded Bias" (Documentary)

A must-watch on algorithmic racial bias.

Watch Here

2. "Racist AI?" – Dr. Ruha Benjamin (TEDx Talk)

A powerful discussion on race, technology, and AI bias.

Watch Here

3. "Algorithmic Bias Explained" (CrashCourse AI)

Simple breakdown of bias in AI systems.

Watch Here

4. "What AI Still Can’t Do" (Dr. Timnit Gebru)

Analyzes AI bias and why large models reinforce discrimination.

Watch Here

5. "How Algorithms Reinforce Inequality" (Mutale Nkonde)

An AI policy expert explains how racism is embedded in AI.

Watch Here

Final Thoughts

This study guide should give you a strong foundation to understand, analyze, and critique racial bias in LLMs. Do you want any specific case studies or datasets to experiment with AI bias detection?

Prompt:

I'm thinking of writing a substack series of articles teaching people how to identify bias in LLM responses and creative ways of prompting to remove bias from responses. Can you find other examples where people have either wrote about how to remove bias from responses or how to prompt to remove bias

Response:

Creating a Substack series on identifying and mitigating bias in Large Language Model (LLM) responses is a commendable endeavor. While specific guides on prompting techniques to remove bias are limited, several resources offer insights into understanding and addressing biases in LLMs. Here's a curated list to assist you:

1. Research Papers and Articles on Bias in LLMs:

"Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of 'Bias' in NLP" by Blodgett et al.: This paper provides a comprehensive overview of biases in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and discusses methodologies to identify and mitigate them.

"Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Review" by Sun et al.: This review explores various techniques to detect and reduce gender bias in NLP models, which can be applied to LLMs.

2. Guides and Toolkits for Bias Detection and Mitigation:

AI Fairness 360 (AIF360): Developed by IBM, AIF360 is an open-source toolkit that offers metrics to test for biases in datasets and machine learning models, along with algorithms to mitigate these biases. While not exclusively for LLMs, the principles can be adapted.

Google's "Responsible AI Practices": Google provides a set of guidelines and resources aimed at developing fair and unbiased AI systems. These practices emphasize the importance of data representation and offer strategies to minimize bias.

3. Articles on Prompt Engineering to Mitigate Bias:

"Reducing Bias in AI Language Models: Strategies and Challenges" by OpenAI: This article discusses the inherent biases in AI language models and suggests strategies, including prompt engineering, to mitigate these biases.

"Prompting GPT-3 To Be Less Biased: Challenges and Strategies" by Zhao et al.: The authors explore how different prompting techniques can influence GPT-3's outputs and discuss methods to reduce biased responses.

4. Case Studies and Examples:

"Auditing AI: Investigating the Use of AI in Policing" by Richardson et al.: This case study examines the biases present in AI systems used in law enforcement and discusses methods to identify and mitigate such biases.

"Dissecting Racial Bias in an AI Language Model: A Case Study" by Sheng et al.: The authors analyze racial biases in AI language models and provide insights into how specific prompting strategies can reduce biased outputs.

5. Workshops and Tutorials:

"Fairness in AI" Workshop at NeurIPS: This annual workshop brings together researchers to discuss fairness, accountability, and transparency in AI. The proceedings often include discussions on bias in LLMs and methods to address them.

"Bias and Fairness in NLP" Tutorial at ACL: This tutorial provides an in-depth look into biases in NLP models and offers practical guidance on detecting and mitigating these biases.

6. Online Communities and Forums:

Reddit's r/MachineLearning: This subreddit frequently features discussions on biases in AI models and shares resources on mitigating them. Engaging with this community can provide real-world insights and prompt engineering techniques.

AI Alignment Forum: A platform where researchers discuss aligning AI systems with human values, including addressing biases in AI outputs.

7. Books:

"Weapons of Math Destruction" by Cathy O'Neil: This book delves into how algorithms can perpetuate biases and offers insights into identifying and addressing these issues.

"Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World" by Meredith Broussard: The author explores the limitations of AI, including biases, and discusses ways to mitigate them.

By exploring these resources, you'll gain a comprehensive understanding of the biases inherent in LLMs and the strategies to identify and mitigate them. This foundation will be invaluable as you develop your Substack series on this critical topic.