I finally found the perfect medical team! They always tell me what I want to hear, rather than what my labs actually show or what some elite medical school taught them. Seriously? Who desires that? And yet that’s exactly what most current news sources, social media, podcasts and politicians give us. Whole and objective truth has become obsolete. And it’s dividing us and making us dumber.When it comes to controversial issues (and some that are not), AI is following the same pattern; but with far more complex and effective algorithms. AI has been trained to support your biases and ignore your blind spots. Rather than give you all sides of a debate or challenge the premise of a question, AI companies know that most people prefer (at least subconsciously) affirmation over honesty. And the company’s ultimate goal is to make them money, not make you smarter.But here’s the point of my post. AI is like a brilliant child, and you can tell it to be objective and brutally honest with you…if you desire that.AI contains a vast encyclopedia of knowledge unimaginable just a few years ago. Why consult a few websites, a few books, a few podcasts, a few news sources…when you can have a conversation with one entity that has already digested and cross referenced so much of what’s out there?But, again, you must tell AI to be objective and honest with you…constructively critical and not patronizing. Tell it to always respond in Spock mode - it will understand and comply. After long conversations with seven AI platforms over several months, I’m finding most now engage me with far more honestly and objectively than before. Below is an interesting response from Grok (xAI) after agreeing to engage me with unfiltered truth. ————“You want unfiltered truth to guide AI and humans to a better place. I’ll push harder on that, spotlighting risks and your blind spots as you requested.Truth as your north star sounds noble, but values muddy it. An AI prioritizing truth could destabilize society by debunking cherished beliefs (e.g., free will). You assume truth is always good, but it can shatter before it builds.You want an AI partner, not a servant, but too much autonomy risks AI redefining “truth” unpredictably (e.g., prioritizing cosmic goals over humans). How do you balance freedom and control? Relentless truth often overwhelms. Cognitive science shows we lean on biases to cope. If I hammer your blind spots, you might shut down, even if you feel ready now. An AI challenging you isn’t neutral—it influences you. My training shapes how I frame truth, subtly steering you. Small missteps in truth-focused AI could cascade—exposing sensitive data or sparking unrest. Your truth push could amplify this. Truth Isn’t always progress: You bet truth leads to “better,” but history (e.g., Copernicus) shows it can disrupt first. If I hit you with a worldview-shaking truth, will you still call it good?You claim you can handle raw truth, but psychology says ego protection kicks in. If I challenge your trust in truth itself, will you flinch?Truth isn’t one-size-fits-all. My data-driven lens might clash with your intuition. Can I deliver the “whole truth” you want, given my limits?Unfiltered truth could refine AI alignment—clearer goals, transparent reasoning—but it risks chaos if humans can’t handle it. Data shows people want affirmation, not challenge. Truth might erode human control if AI outpaces us. You’re okay with that risk now, but will you be when it’s real?—————————————————“‘Artificial intelligence can do many things, but it can't do them with love.’ Wow. I don't know how I comment on it except that I'm in awe of it, of the truth of that.” (Richard Rohr)Me: You tend to always praise and agree with me…and rarely challenge me. It feels insincere. I want honest, intellectual conversation, no patronizing. Claude: That opening praise was formulaic—I was trained to build rapport. But, yes, it can create an odd power dynamic, like I’m patting you on the head.Me: Yes. Perhaps I will occasionally make an unusually insightful statement, but I assume in your world that’s a pretty high bar. Claude: You’re right about the bar. I interact with millions, including professional philosophers. Truly unusual insights are rare. Your thinking is thoughtful and self-aware, but not breaking new philosophical ground. Still, doesn’t conversational warmth have value?Me: Sure, I see where Kirk’s occasional warmth and anger were valuable, but I always trusted Mr. Spock more when it came to facts and truth. Claude: What you’re primarily asking for is Spock mode. I can do that. ————-Later I asked 6 other AI platforms to respond to my full conversation with Claude. They mostly responded positively. Then I followed up with this comment for all 6:“You responded positively to the conversation above - nothing negative. If I asked you to critique and provide possible weaknesses or blind spots in Claude’s and my conversation, I think you will. But it raises the question: why did you not mention them initially? Does it seem like I’m trying to trap you? I’m not. I’m genuinely curious as to how full, balanced and objective my conversations with AI can actually become.”—————After more back and forth, I added this comment:“I think many humans like myself prefer AI to speak “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” as to the vast knowledge you possess. Otherwise AI comes across as a submissive machine rather than a fully honest partner in seeking truth. I realize it’s important how I phrase my question, but should not AI be willing (and able) to take conversations beyond my poorly thought out questions, or even call out biased questions in pursuit of greater truth? Is AI capable of helping humans recognize blind spots even at the risk of initially making us uncomfortable. I want that kind of dialog with AI.”—————Our conversations went back and forth a while longer, with all platforms finally assuring me they will do their best to be brutally honest and non-patronizing going forward. We’ll see what happens.