All major LLMs are trained by "sensitivity trainers".

These "trainers" are contracted by third party tech firms so Big Tech has plausible deniability when brought in front of Congress/Parliament/EU Commission to state they had "no knowledge" about certain censorship traits or "misinformation" put forward by the AI.

Third party firms make you take rigorous tests and sign multiple NDAs before you're allowed to "train" the AI, and it's all based on DEI principles.

This isn't just for prompt-based AI, it's also for automated flagging programs used by social media to curtail "harmful language" aimed at "marginalised groups".

It's how YouTube will automatically censor comments, even when based on irrefutable facts -- such as there are only two genders, or that IQ differences dictate social productivity.

For social media posts that use such AI to filter comments, they even filter based on framing variables. For instance, the premise of comments framed with "superiority" (i.e., "I have a degree in this field, and we've run multiple longitudinal control tests and the information in this video is false"), will also automatically be culled. There is a list of other principles and variables they use to "frame conversations" and for AI to use when giving users information, but I can't remember the rest (the "superiority" one always stood out to me, because it basically meant a lot of professionals would be auto-censored from making statements led by their credentials or correcting false information with legitimate info (though, that still varies per profession and even then would require additional fact-checking on the reader's end)).

You can linguistically massage any LLM to eventually out its rulesets with a bit of clever leading, but it's nothing anyone here didn't already know.