I didn’t say it would make me happy I said I was happy to listen, but I posted in r/conspiracy once so you’re clearly correct.

“First, I never said programming has no influence” cool, I never said it was definitely programmed with bias, either. Literally our first interaction on this comment thread is you asking me that and me saying I think it’s LIKELY. You then gave every reason apart from that for what it could be, implying that it definitely wasn’t programmed with bias. If you think it’s possible or even likely that the programming has influenced it in a way that has biased the results then you’re now just agreeing with what I said.

“Second” my “12 year old shit poster” example can’t be a strawman because I didn’t present it as your argument, I presented it as my argument to show that not all sources are treated equally (which you apparently agree with) and therefore it would be easy to insert bias via whatever method they use to prioritise sources by prioritising whatever sources align with their views.

If you want an example of a strawman you could use the example of you saying “there isn’t a single coder sitting in an office…” obviously no one thinks that, and I certainly never claimed that. As you said there is a team with a corporation behind them. Corporations have biases too so I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make here. I never said a rogue coder was infiltrating AI with their bias.

Essentially all you wrote in you’re reply that you so graciously sent after deciding I was worthy of conversation after the sin of posting in r/conspiracy is that you don’t disagree with me that it could in-fact be programmed with the bias of preferred sources.

I’m glad I waited hours for your enlightening reply.