acronym-spouting rules lawyers
That's pretty much the response I got offering even extremely mild dissent from AI spam. Apparently, "WP:MNA" means you can just make shit up as long as industry blog posts rely on that wild fever dream being true, for instance. Handy!
The number of sources isn't really the issue; many of those are industry advertisements, such as blog posts on product pages, for instance. Out of the few that are papers, almost all are written exclusively by industry research teams — while that doesn't on its own invalidate their results, it does mean that there's a strong financial interest in the non-consensus view (in particular, that LLMs can be "programmed"). The few papers that have been peer-reviewed have extreme methodological flaws, such that there's essentially almost no support for the article's bombastic and extreme non-consensus claims.
Yes and no. Even in living memory, the Southern Strategy goes all the way back to the 60s, and explicitly identifies opposition to the civil rights movement as a conservative goal. Going all the way back to the Civil War, it's undeniable how much the economy of the United States is built on slavery — opposing slavery is thus also an economic argument.
Point being, I don't think there was some time in the past where economic policy could be so cleanly separated from racial justice, gender equality, queer rights, disability advocacy, and other things that are now seen as "polarizing." Every economic debate is, I would posit, at least to some significant degree a proxy for a much more critical human rights debate.
It's deep in the replies to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prompt_engineering#Neutral_point_of_view. Thanks as well for reinstating the NPOV template, really bothers me that it was unilaterally deleted without any addressing of the problem.