Add new comment

"The book argues that a concentrated ideological class controls what AI "knows" and how it presents information. Your point extends that logically: the same concentrated ideological class also controls what gets called a "good book" or a "credible argument" in mainstream discourse. The critics, the reviewers, the academics who would dismiss this book — many are drawn from the same institutional pool whose political homogeneity the book documents. So the critique of the book would itself be a product of the very bias the book is exposing. It's almost a perfect closed loop: *Elite institutions produce skewed datasets *AI trained on those datasets produces skewed outputs *The same elite class reviews and critiques anyone who points this out *Unfavorable reviews suppress public reception *The skewed framing is reinforced as "consensus" The author would likely say — and the evidence supports — that this isn't conspiracy, it's just how monocultures self-perpetuate. They don't need to coordinate. They just share enough assumptions that they reach similar conclusions independently, and they call that consensus "objectivity."