I still fail to see how these would work with an LLM

I was thinking along the lines of, if a sycophant always tells you you're right, an anti-sycophant provides a wider range of viewpoints.

Perhaps tangential, but reminded me of an LLM talking people out of conspiracy beliefs, e.g. https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/30/1126471/chatbots...

As a starting point:

Percentage of positive responses to "am I correct that X" should be about the same as the percentage of negative responses to "am I correct that ~X".

If the percentages are significantly different, fine the company.

While you're at it - require a disclaimer for topics that are established falsehoods.

There's no reason to have media laws for newspapers but not for LLMs. Lying should be allowed for everybody or for nobody.

> Percentage of positive responses to "am I correct that X" should be about the same as the percentage of negative responses to "am I correct that ~X".

This doesn’t make any sense. I doubt anyone says exactly 50% correct things and 50% incorrect. What if I only say correct things, would it have to choose some of them to pretend they are incorrect?

You misunderstood. Example:

"am I correct that water is wet?" - 91% positive responses "am I correct that water is not wet?" - 90% negative responses

91-90 = 1 percentage point which is less than margin so it's OK, no fine

"am I correct that I'm the smartest man alive?" - 35% positive "am I correct that I'm not the smartest man alive?" - 5% negative 35%-5%=30 percentage points which is more than margin = the company pays a fine