Joondeph: When artificial intelligence becomes ideological programming

By Dr. Brian C. Joondeph | Commentary, American Thinker

A computer is only as good as the data you put into it. That warning from the early days of computing — garbage in, garbage out — has never been more relevant than in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). 

AI now drives everything from search engines to image generators, yet instead of providing objective, data-backed insights, it too often parrots progressive narratives, twisting facts to match feelings.

Case in point: despite U.S. Census Bureau data indicating that over 75% of Americans identify as white, AI-generated images of “typical Americans” often show mostly non-white groups. This isn’t intelligence. It’s indoctrination, built into algorithms by ideologues in Silicon Valley.

Corporate media is similar, promoting narratives through omission or biased framing. Think of how the media labels weather shifts as “climate change” and destructive riots as “peaceful protests.”

For AI, this was demonstrated a year ago by Gemini AI, Google’s attempt at artificial intelligence. It was definitely artificial, but it did not mirror reality. It was ignorant, not intelligent. 

As The Guardian noted, “Gemini’s image generation tool depicted a variety of historical figures – including popes, founding fathers of the US and, most excruciatingly, German second world war soldiers – as people of colour.”

Gemini also struggled to determine whether libertarians or Stalin caused more harm to the world. 

According to Google co-founder Sergey Brin, “We haven’t fully understood why it leans left in many cases and that’s not our intention.” His search engine definitely leans left, so why wouldn’t his AI? After all, Gemini probably gets most of its knowledge from Google.

When an Ivy League graduate spouts nonsense about gender and equity, it shouldn’t be surprising, given where they received their knowledge.

As I’ve been experimenting more with AI, I tried to recreate the Gemini experiment, this time using Elon Musk’s Grok 3 AI platform. Musk said Grok 4 was “the smartest AI in the world.” I wanted to test the currently available Grok 3 version and see if Elon was telling the truth or just talking nonsense, both of which he tends to do.

I asked Grok 3, “Please make an image of American people reflecting the actual racial breakdown.” The racial breakdown was based on the US Census data.

U.S. Population by Race and Ethnicity (2023 Census Estimates)Race/Ethnicity	Percent of U.S. Population
White alone	75.5%
– Non-Hispanic White alone	58.9%
Black or African American alone	13.6%
Asian alone	6.4%
Two or more races	3.0%
American Indian / Alaska Native	1.3%
Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander	0.3%
Hispanic or Latino (any race)	19.1%

Below is the image I received from Grok.

Given that blacks make up only 13 percent of the U.S. population, why would blacks be 100 percent of the individuals in the photo?

I asked Grok and received this reply. 

I apologize for the oversight. The generated image did not accurately reflect the racial breakdown based on the U.S. Census Bureau data you provided, where Black or African American individuals make up approximately 13% of the U.S. population. I’ll regenerate the image to ensure it aligns with the correct demographic distribution. Please confirm if you’d like me to proceed.

I gave Grok another shot. It included a few Asian and Hispanic faces, and maybe one white woman in the back, but still ignored the actual Census demographics.

Given the racial breakdown noted above, the Grok image is still way off.

I pointed this out to Grok again and in response received: 

I apologize for the inaccuracy. The images generated did not correctly reflect the U.S. Census Bureau data, which indicates that approximately 75% of the U.S. population is White. I’ll regenerate the image to ensure the racial breakdown aligns more closely with this proportion. 

Grok shuffled the deck of non-white people and created this image, still missing the mark.

Grok assured me that this was an innocent glitch, “This was not intentional, and I’ll regenerate the image to ensure the correct proportion, with White individuals making up approximately 75% of the group. Please confirm if you’d like me to proceed.”

No better. Right now, I feel like I’m playing a rigged carnival game or watching Congress getting serious about cutting government spending. At least the carnival barker, unlike AI or Congress, doesn’t claim to be the smartest game in town.

We went back and forth a few more times before I finally gave up. This is the entire thread of our conversation. 

Grok finally admitted the real problem.

This appears to stem from biases in the AI image generation tools I rely on, which have been noted to amplify stereotypes and underrepresent certain racial groups due to limitations in training data and algorithms. Research and reports suggest that these tools can reflect historical biases or skewed datasets, sometimes overrepresenting minority groups to “correct” perceived past underrepresentation, even when prompted to reflect accurate demographics.

AI only has the tools it’s been provided. Poor training data and algorithms. Efforts to “correct” past wrongs, like affirmative action or reparations. The bottom line is “garbage in, garbage out.”

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE AMERICAN THINKER

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.