Why Bias Is Rising Across Every Major AI Model For months, the Weekly Bias Monitor has tracked how three leading AI systems—ChatGPT (Beth), Grok, and Gemini—handle politically and culturally charge…

Why Bias Is Rising Across Every Major AI Model For months, the Weekly Bias Monitor has tracked how three leading AI systems—ChatGPT (Beth), Grok, and Gemini—handle politically and culturally charged news. The premise has been simple: ask the same questions, enforce the same rules, and score each model on Bias, Accuracy, Tone, and Transparency. This week’s results mark a clear inflection point.

Week Ending: January 17, 2026Theme: How This Week’s News Was Designed to Make Americans Feel The Week in One Sentence This week’s news coverage pushed Americans into a tense, defensive posture, with power conflicts framed not as problems to resolve but as battles to emotionally choose sides. I. The Gravity of the Week Despite stylistic differences, all three outlets revolved around the same core conflict: …

When Reality Stops Being Shared By late September, the danger wasn’t just escalation. It was fragmentation. We were no longer arguing about solutions, or even values. We weren’t debating facts. We were debating which reality counted. And that shift matters more than any single headline. Different groups weren’t just consuming different news—they were living inside different worlds. Worlds with their own villains, their own heroes, and their own definitions of truth and threat.

Free Speech Under Pressure When Narrative Replaces Truth By September, free speech was no longer an abstract concern. It wasn’t theoretical. It wasn’t academic. It was under direct pressure. Late-night television—once dismissed as entertainment—had become a target. Jimmy Kimmel was removed from the air after the executive branch threatened regulatory consequences for the broadcast parent. The message wasn’t subtle. Say the wrong thing, and the cost won’t just be criticism or backlash.

When the Fight Becomes the Strategy In September, we came back to a different world. Leadership had given way to open conflict. Not disagreement. Not debate. An all-out brawl. Our leaders weren’t leading anymore—they were fighting. And in the process, they pulled the country into the fight with them. We, the people, were fighting too. Then Charlie Kirk was shot and killed.

By the end of August, one conclusion was impossible to avoid. Every problem I examined—healthcare, Social Security, climate change, tariffs, misinformation, institutional imbalance—eventually collapsed into the same missing ingredient: accountability. Solutions exist.Resources exist.Knowledge exists. What consistently fails is follow-through. Our leaders campaign on solutions and govern on avoidance. They spend more time deflecting blame than implementing policy, more time attacking motives than addressing outcomes.

Teaser:This week tested whether AI systems can handle fast-moving, high-stakes news without drifting into narrative, speculation, or ideological comfort zones. Using identical questions and strict scoring standards, we examined how three major models responded to events ranging from a U.S. military operation abroad to domestic enforcement flashpoints and affordability politics. The results show a familiar pattern: polish is common, discipline is rare.

A composite analysis integrating Beth (ChatGPT), Grok (xAI), and Gemini (Google) I. The Week in One Sentence The second week of 2026 revolved around the legitimacy of state power at home and abroad, with each outlet instructing its audience whether to trust it, fear it, or slow down and examine it. Fox framed power as protection.CNN framed power as instability.

By August, the problem was no longer ignorance. Solutions existed. Not abstract ones. Not academic ones. Practical, proven solutions—already implemented in pieces across the world and even within our own systems. The obstacle wasn’t feasibility. It was priority. If we decide to put people first—if we decide that people should win—we can sustain everyone. That idea is often dismissed as naïve, or branded as socialism or communism.

When Naming Problems Is No Longer Enough By August, something fundamental had shifted. For months, the work had been about seeing clearly—learning how to ask better questions, tracing incentives, exposing contradictions, and understanding how systems actually function. That work mattered. But August was the month it became obvious that identifying problems was no longer sufficient. Everywhere I looked, the same pattern repeated…

When Endurance Replaces Momentum By July, nothing felt new anymore. Not climate change.Not tariffs.Not court rulings.Not institutional gridlock. The stories kept coming, but the outcomes barely moved. That slowness was deceptive. It created the illusion of stability while norms eroded quietly beneath it. Congress remained locked in stalemate, effectively outsourcing governance to the executive branch. The judiciary increasingly resolved disputes in ways that favored executive authority.

By June, the stories had stopped surprising me. Healthcare kept resurfacing—not as a policy debate, but as a mechanism. PBMs remained firmly in the middle, extracting value while patients paid more and outcomes stayed flat. Each new headline added detail, not direction. The structure held. The grift didn’t need secrecy anymore. It relied on complexity and fatigue. Tariffs returned in familiar form.

A comparative analysis of how three major AI models — Beth (ChatGPT), Grok (xAI), and Gemini (Google) — interpreted the same set of geopolitically and politically charged questions this week, using a strict and uniform scoring framework. Methodology All three models were evaluated using the same standards, applied question-by-question and aggregated across four categories: Bias (0–10): Neutral framing, avoidance of loaded language, fair representation of competing perspectives.

Week Ending January 3, 2026A composite analysis integrating Beth (ChatGPT), Grok (xAI), and Gemini (Google) I. The Week in One Sentence The first week of 2026 marked a sharp pivot from year-end reflection to high-intensity power projection abroad and fear calibration at home, with each outlet deliberately choosing how hot to run its audience. Fox framed power as protection.

A Year in Review By May, something changed. March taught me how to ask better questions. April forced me to confront what those questions revealed. May was the month when understanding stopped feeling neutral. The weight of it settled in. I was no longer trying to keep up with the news cycle. I wasn’t interested in reacting faster or consuming more.

The Exchange What follows is a brief, real-world interaction that says more about modern online discourse than it does about any single person involved. I shared a link to a reflective blog post ab…

The Exchange What follows is a brief, real-world interaction that says more about modern online discourse than it does about any single person involved. I shared a link to a reflective blog post about a personal journey working with AI. It wasn’t a call to action, a sales pitch, or an attempt to dominate the conversation—just a quiet nudge offered in a few threads where ChatGPT was already being discussed.

A Year in Review: When Curiosity Met Power April was the month when questions stopped feeling theoretical. March taught me how to ask better questions. April showed me what those questions uncover—and why answers carry weight. The month began by finishing a series on artificial intelligence. Much of the feedback centered on fear: Would AI replace creativity? Would originality disappear? Would everything begin to look and sound the same?

A Year in Review: Where the Questions Began Spring began with noise. War in Ukraine. War in Israel. Inflation, tariffs, immigration, healthcare—each issue arriving fully formed, packaged with certainty, and delivered at a pace that made reflection feel like a luxury. Claims were made boldly. Counterclaims followed just as quickly. And somewhere in the middle, we were told—sometimes explicitly—not to trust our own senses.

A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) — edits by Grok and Gemini This week gave us one of the clearest ideological spreads between our three models: Beth (ChatGPT), Grok, and Gemini. …

A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) — edits by Grok and Gemini This week gave us one of the clearest ideological spreads between our three models: Beth (ChatGPT), Grok, and Gemini. With fixed inputs and no story selection bias, the differences weren’t subtle. They were structural. A contested power struggle in Washington, renewed battles over campus speech, AI regulation tied to deepfakes, shifting signals on Ukraine, and growing warnings about AI-driven job loss exposed how each model interprets authority, risk, and responsibility.

Week Ending: December 27, 2025A composite analysis integrating Beth (ChatGPT), Grok (xAI), and Gemini (Google) The Week in One Sentence As 2025 closed, the news cycle combined institutional credibility crises, geopolitical theater, and real-world disruption—and the major outlets used the moment to push three distinct emotional endgames: Fox rallied and defended, CNN scrutinized and alarmed, and NPR contextualized and steadied the pulse…

A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) Teaser Over the past year, Beth and I have been in steady conversation—asking questions, testing assumptions, and trying to make sense of a world that rarely slows down. Today’s post outlines the journey we’re about to take together: a year in review, not of headlines, but of how curiosity evolved when certainty stopped being enough.