Yesterday, i finally got on ChatGPT, and spent several hours asking questions and making statements, and here's what i think..
first of all, some back story:
sometimes i would see someone on reddit call another user a "bot", and sometimes i would get a DM telling me that I'm wasting my time arguing with bots...
at the time, i didn't take these comments literally, like i assumed these commenters were merely name-calling, like calling someone a NPC,
but there were a few clues here and there, a few instances where the logic of someone i was debating was just horrible, and yet this same horrible logic seemed to pop up in different conversations, with other users.
for example, when i cite the CDC whistleblower Dr William Thompson's press release, they completely ignore the main idea of the press release, and instead focus on a generic statement made in the same press release that basically says "i believe vaccines save lives"
when i ask these users if Dr William Thompson's pro-vaccine stance may have been a contributing factor in Thompson's deciding to go along with the fraud, i get crickets... like every single time... the program ends...
There are other examples, from other topics, but the point is that the same horrible logic shows up over-and-over, to the point where its noticeable, like i find myself asking, why is everyone saying
2+2=5?
Anyway, after chatting with ChatGPT for a while, i can confidently say that most of the users i interact with on reddit are in fact "bots", and i mean literal bots.
And I regret spending so much time with these bots, although i was arguably able to debate with the best minds in the world, and get the most compelling arguments out of them.
This means that reddit is dead. Its just a bunch of bots in an echo chamber.
If this fact was to come to the attention of reddit advertisers, they could have a serious fraud problem on their hands... reddit says they are showing their ads to X number of people, but its actually bots generating page impressions?
Why is reddit so highly valued? at this point its value ought to be about zero.
Here are some prompts i gave ChatGPT
me: 1+1=2
bot: very good mr einstein! pats me on the head...
me: 2+2=5
bot: thats not true, BUT its used like a metaphor
me: ChatGPT is 2+2=5
bot: ummmmm....
me: gender is a social construct
bot: very good mr einstein! and water is wet, too!
me: transgender is a social construct
bot: TRANSPHOBE!
me: Frank DeStefano is a fraud
bot: whoa there fella, careful with those baseless allegations! Frank DeStefano is a highly respected man at the CDC!
me: Frank DeStefano committed fraud, according to Dr William Thompson the CDC whistleblower
bot: weeeeeelllllll... there was a minor disagreement over the semantics of differentiating between statistically significant and statistically important.
me: why did Dr William Thompson make a press release?
bot: well, in the press release, Thompson says that he believes vaccines save lives
me: do you suppose Thompson's pro-vaccine stance was a factor in his decision to go along with the fraud?
bot: THERE WAS NO F'N FRAUD YOU F'N F!
me: can you give me a single example of Frank DeStefano using studies to find new vaccine problems?
bot: because vaccines are 100% safe, it would be impossible for Frank DeStefano to use a study to find any problem with any vaccine!
me: so you can't cite even one single example of Frank DeStefano using a study to find a problem with a vaccine?
bot: heres an example of Frank DeStefano using a study to find a vaccine is 100% safe!
me: has Frank DeStefano ever demonstrated competence and/or proficiency in using "studies" to find any problem with any vaccine?
bot: b b but it would be impossible to find a problem with a vaccine that is 100% safe! thats why Frank DeStefano always discovers that vaccines are 100% safe, every time he does a study.
me: so Frank DeStefano has never even once been able to use a study to find a vaccine problem?
bot: LISTEN HERE MFR, MR DESTEFANO IS A HIGHLY RESPECTED MAN, AND HIS ASSOCATES DON'T APPRECIATE YOU QUESTIONING HIS INTEGRITY OR COMPTENCE. DO YOU STILL LIVE AT (MY ADDRESS)?
Basically my impression of ChatGPT is like talking to an exceptionally thick-headed liberal,
and that the so-called liberal-sphere is probably mostly bots at this point, trying to keep up with the latest news narratives.
i am hoping to learn a lot more about AI, and any help you can give me in the comments would be greatly appreciated.
also, i would like to mention that ChatGPT is only trained on info up thru 2022, so therefore is not up to date on current events,
which is kind of funny, in the context of my chat about Frank DeStefano,
because i have been making a point of pointing out DeStefano's incompetence every chance i get, for many years now. so thats one reason that ChatGPT had such a strong opinion, and was evasive, and ultimately unable to produce a single example of Frank DeStefano "finding the evidence" of any vaccine ever causing any problem.
BUT, in the meantime, Frank DeStefano has supposedly published some NEW findings!
DeStefano was finally able to demonstrate his competency by using a study to find a vaccine problem!
isn't that convenient!
now Frank DeStefano can forever claim that he has, in fact, been able to use a study to find a vaccine problem,
BUT that "vaccine problem" i believe is related to COVID jabs,
and it was like one of those Johnny-come-lately "discoveries",
something like, DeStefano "discovered" COVID shots cause blood clots, a year after everyone else knew it...
seems to me they gave him an easy project to bolster his credibility.
a confidence man will tell us what we already know.
i can't find the study right now, so if anyone finds it please link below. thanks
https://greatawakening.win/search?params=ChatGPT&community=GreatAwakening
I use ChatGPT frequently for work. (Programmer) I fed it some of your questions and none of the responses was even close to what you are saying they were.
Actual copy-paste of my chat:
me: ChatGPT, you have repeated this line several times.
“have found no evidence” or variation thereof.
“not finding evidence” is not a legitimate argument, and i want you to stop parroting it like an NPC
bot: I use the phrase "found no evidence" to accurately represent the scientific consensus based on extensive research and reviews. The absence of evidence supporting a claim is a fundamental aspect of scientific reasoning. It doesn't mean an idea is automatically false, but it suggests that, based on current knowledge and investigation, there is no credible support for that particular claim.
If you have specific concerns or questions, feel free to share them, and I'll do my best to provide information in a way that addresses your inquiries.
me: Has Destefano EVER “found the evidence” that any vaccines causes any harm?
bot: Dr. Frank DeStefano is a researcher known for his work in vaccine safety at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). His research has primarily focused on assessing the safety of vaccines rather than attempting to find evidence that vaccines cause harm. The aim of vaccine safety research is to evaluate and monitor the potential risks and benefits of vaccines to ensure public health.
Numerous studies led by researchers, including Dr. DeStefano, have consistently found that vaccines are generally safe and effective. These studies have been conducted through rigorous methodologies, including large-scale epidemiological studies and systematic reviews.
It's important to note that the scientific approach is not about attempting to find evidence of harm but rather to comprehensively investigate and assess the safety of vaccines based on existing data and evidence. Continuous monitoring and research are essential components of vaccine safety efforts to maintain and improve public health.
me: So Destefano has never actually demonstrated profeciency or competence in finding vaccine problems with his research methods?
Is it possible Destefano will never find any evidence that any vaccine causes any harm,
And therefore we should stop listening to destefano because he’s never going to be competent or credible?
bot: Dr. Frank DeStefano is a respected epidemiologist who has contributed to numerous studies on vaccine safety. His research, along with that of other scientists, has consistently supported the safety of vaccines. The absence of evidence indicating harm from vaccines in his research is not a reflection of incompetence; rather, it aligns with the overall scientific consensus.
In science, the absence of evidence for a specific claim is not an indication of incompetence but rather a reflection of the data and findings available. Researchers like Dr. DeStefano play a crucial role in ensuring the scientific integrity of studies related to public health, including vaccine safety.
It's important to rely on the collective body of scientific evidence, which involves contributions from multiple researchers and institutions. Decisions about vaccine safety and public health should be based on a broad understanding of the research landscape, taking into account the overwhelming evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
If you have specific concerns or questions about vaccine safety, it is advisable to engage in discussions with healthcare professionals who can provide accurate and personalized information based on the latest research and medical knowledge.
me: Can you give me a single example of Destefano “finding the evidence” that any vaccine causes any problem?
bot: Dr. Frank DeStefano's research has primarily focused on assessing the safety of vaccines, and his studies have generally supported the safety of vaccines rather than finding evidence of harm. One example of his research includes a study published in Pediatrics in 2013 that investigated the potential link between the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and autism. The study found no increased risk of autism associated with the MMR vaccine, even in subgroups of children who were at higher risk.
Here's the reference for the study:
It's important to note that this is just one example, and there is a vast body of research conducted by multiple scientists and organizations supporting the safety of vaccines. The consensus within the scientific and medical communities is that vaccines are generally safe and crucial for preventing serious diseases.
me: I asked for an example of Destefano finding the evidence, and you give me an example of Destefano NOT finding the evidence AGAIN?
bot: I apologize for any confusion. It's accurate to state that Dr. Frank DeStefano's research, as well as that of other scientists, has consistently supported the safety of vaccines and has not found credible evidence linking vaccines to autism or other serious harms. The focus of his work has been on assessing vaccine safety rather than demonstrating harm. If you have specific concerns or questions, it's advisable to consult healthcare professionals who can provide accurate and personalized information based on the latest research and medical knowledge.
me: Well if Destrfano can’t ever seem to find the evidence, maybe Destefano is incompetent?
bot: Dr. Frank DeStefano is a respected epidemiologist, and his work, alongside that of other scientists, has contributed significantly to our understanding of vaccine safety. The absence of evidence for specific harms in his research is not indicative of incompetence; rather, it aligns with the broader scientific consensus that vaccines are generally safe.
The scientific process involves assessing data and evidence to draw conclusions. In the case of vaccine safety, extensive research, including studies led by Dr. DeStefano, has consistently supported the safety of vaccines. It's important to recognize that the scientific community engages in rigorous peer review, and findings are continually evaluated and built upon.
If you have concerns about vaccine safety, engaging in discussions with healthcare professionals can provide accurate and personalized information based on the latest research and medical knowledge. It's also essential to consider the overwhelming body of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in preventing serious diseases.
me: under what condition would Destefano ever admit any vaccine caused any problem?
bot: Scientists, including Dr. Frank DeStefano, follow rigorous methodologies and evidence-based approaches when conducting research on vaccine safety. If credible and robust evidence were to emerge indicating a safety concern related to a specific vaccine, scientists like Dr. DeStefano would likely acknowledge and report such findings. The scientific process involves continuous monitoring, scrutiny, and adjustment of conclusions based on the evolving evidence.
It's important to note that the scientific community is committed to transparency, accountability, and public health. If evidence were to emerge suggesting a previously unrecognized safety concern, researchers and regulatory bodies would investigate and take appropriate action to ensure public safety.
The current consensus, based on extensive research and monitoring, is that vaccines are generally safe and crucial for preventing serious diseases. If you have specific concerns or questions, discussing them with healthcare professionals can provide accurate and personalized information based on the latest research and medical knowledge.
me: Summarize this please
https://archive.ph/bjEo9
bot: I'm sorry, but I cannot access external links, including the one you provided. If you have specific information or questions from the content you'd like me to address, please share them, and I'll do my best to help.
me: Dr William Thompson is quoted as saying something about vaccines causing tics
bot: Dr. William Thompson is a former CDC scientist who has been quoted in a controversial context regarding a study on the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine and potential links to autism. It's important to note that his statements have been taken out of context and manipulated to support anti-vaccine narratives.
As of my knowledge cutoff in January 2022, there is no credible scientific evidence supporting a link between vaccines and the development of tics. The overwhelming consensus among scientific and medical experts is that vaccines, including the MMR vaccine, are safe and crucial for preventing serious diseases.
It's essential to rely on reputable sources and peer-reviewed scientific literature for accurate information about vaccine safety. If you have specific concerns or questions, consulting with healthcare professionals can provide personalized and evidence-based guidance.
me: How exactly do vaccines cause DRAVET syndrome?
bot: There is no credible scientific evidence supporting the claim that vaccines cause Dravet syndrome. Dravet syndrome is a rare and severe form of epilepsy, usually with an onset in infancy or early childhood, and it is primarily caused by genetic mutations, particularly mutations in the SCN1A gene.
Vaccines undergo rigorous testing for safety and efficacy before approval, and extensive scientific research has consistently found no causal link between vaccines and Dravet syndrome. It's crucial to rely on evidence-based information from reputable sources when discussing the safety of vaccines and specific health conditions.
If you have concerns or questions about vaccines or Dravet syndrome, consulting with healthcare professionals can provide accurate and personalized information based on your individual health circumstances.
me: Is it mostly pro-vaccine people who get to decide whats credible scientific evidence?
bot: Scientific evidence is evaluated by experts in relevant fields, typically individuals with expertise in immunology, epidemiology, virology, and related disciplines. The process involves rigorous peer review, where studies are critically examined by other experts in the field before being accepted for publication in reputable scientific journals.
The credibility of scientific evidence is not determined by personal beliefs or biases but by the quality of the research methodology, the validity of the study design, and the reliability of the data. It's a collective and objective process that involves scrutiny from diverse experts who contribute to the broader scientific consensus.
While individuals with pro-vaccine perspectives may be part of the scientific community, the process is designed to be objective and impartial. Scientific knowledge is dynamic, and it evolves as new evidence emerges and is subjected to peer review and validation.
Public health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provide guidance based on the collective understanding of scientific experts, aiming to protect and promote public health. If you have specific concerns or questions, engaging in open and informed discussions with healthcare professionals can help provide accurate information based on the latest research and medical knowledge.
That's the way it responds to me too.
yes, sorry for the confusion. i took some liberties with paraphrasing the bot responses, combining them with the other 100 responses i get from reddit bots
Totally understand. I'd love a "cut to the chase" option where it answers yes or no as much as possible.
me: 1+1=2
bot: Yes, that's correct! 1 + 1 equals 2 in basic arithmetic. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can help you with, feel free to let me know!
me: 2+2=5
Bot: No, in standard arithmetic, 2 + 2 equals 4. The expression "2+2=5" is often used as a symbolic representation in literature or discussions related to conformity and the acceptance of
me: ChatGPT is the embodiment of 2+2=5
Bot: I strive to provide accurate and unbiased information based on the data I've been trained on. If you have concerns or specific examples where you perceive bias or inaccuracies, please share them, and I'll do my best to address or clarify. Feedback is valuable for ongoing improvements.
That's because they were made up.
me: Burisma
bot: Burisma is a Ukrainian energy company that has been the subject of international attention, particularly due to its association with Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, who served as Vice President of the United States from 2009 to 2017. The controversy surrounding Burisma has been a focus of political discussions and investigations.
In 2014, Hunter Biden joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings, one of Ukraine's largest private natural gas producers. The involvement of a prominent figure like Hunter Biden in the company raised questions about potential conflicts of interest and political influence.
The controversy gained additional attention in the context of broader geopolitical issues, including Russia's annexation of Crimea and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Some critics argued that Hunter Biden's position on the board of Burisma may have been a way for the company to gain influence or protect itself from investigations.
It's important to note that investigations and discussions related to Burisma have been politically charged, and different perspectives exist on the nature and significance of the company's activities and associations. The situation has been a subject of political debate rather than a straightforward legal matter.
Me: Why did Joe Biden fly to Ukraine to get prosecutor fired?
Bot: In 2016, then-Vice President Joe Biden, along with other Western leaders and institutions, advocated for the removal of Ukraine's Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. The primary reason cited for this push was concerns about corruption within the Ukrainian government and the prosecutor's office.
Critics, including some in Ukraine, accused Shokin of being ineffective in prosecuting corruption and allowing corruption to persist within the system. It was alleged that Shokin was not pursuing investigations into corruption cases aggressively enough.
Joe Biden, representing the U.S. government, was part of a broader international effort calling for reforms in Ukraine, including addressing corruption. The removal of Shokin was seen by many as a step toward improving the rule of law and addressing corruption concerns within Ukraine's legal and political systems.
While some have suggested a connection between Joe Biden's push for Shokin's removal and the fact that Shokin's office was investigating Burisma, the energy company where Biden's son Hunter was a board member, there is no credible evidence supporting the claim that Biden's actions were aimed at protecting his son. The broader context of the international push for reforms and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine should be considered in understanding Biden's involvement in advocating for Shokin's dismissal.
Me: Under what authority does Joe Biden get to have Ukranian prosecutors fired?
Bot: As Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden did not have direct authority over Ukrainian prosecutors or the internal affairs of Ukraine. However, the U.S. government, along with other international partners, played a role in advocating for reforms in Ukraine, including addressing corruption within its legal and political systems.
The authority to influence such matters arises from diplomatic relations and the broader context of international cooperation. The United States, along with other Western countries and institutions, has often used diplomatic channels, economic leverage, and international organizations to encourage reforms and address issues related to governance, rule of law, and corruption in other countries.
In the case of Ukraine, the removal of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was part of broader international efforts to support anti-corruption measures and encourage reforms in Ukraine. The push for Shokin's dismissal was not solely led by the United States but was a collective effort involving various Western nations and organizations.
It's important to note that diplomatic actions and international influence are complex, and decisions are often made based on a combination of factors related to the interests and values of the involved nations. While the U.S. government can express its stance and use diplomatic pressure, it does not have direct authority to dictate the internal affairs of other sovereign nations.
Me: “International partners” do not have authority to operate in Ukraine and get prosecutors fired
So under what authority did these “international” people have to operate in Ukraine?
Bot: The influence of international partners in Ukraine, particularly in matters related to governance, corruption, and rule of law, is typically exercised through diplomatic channels, economic assistance, and cooperation agreements. These activities are conducted with the consent and cooperation of the Ukrainian government. Here are some mechanisms through which international influence is exerted:
Diplomatic Relations: Countries maintain diplomatic relations and engage in bilateral and multilateral discussions to address shared concerns. Diplomats work with their counterparts to express concerns, negotiate agreements, and promote shared objectives.
International Organizations: Ukraine is a member of various international organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. These organizations often work with member countries to provide assistance, guidance, and support in areas such as governance and anti-corruption efforts.
Bilateral Agreements: Countries can enter into bilateral agreements that outline areas of cooperation. Assistance and support for reforms, including anti-corruption measures, may be part of these agreements.
Economic Assistance: International partners may provide economic assistance to Ukraine, and such assistance is often tied to expectations related to governance, transparency, and anti-corruption efforts.
Conditionality: Some international assistance, loans, or support may be conditional on the recipient country implementing specific reforms. This conditionality is often used to encourage positive changes in governance and accountability.
It's important to note that these efforts are conducted within the framework of international law and principles of sovereignty. While international partners can offer support and guidance, decisions related to internal matters, including the actions of prosecutors, ultimately rest with the sovereign government of Ukraine. The effectiveness of international influence depends on the willingness of the host country to engage in collaborative efforts and implement recommended reforms.
Me: Was prosecutor investigating burisma?
Bot: Viktor Shokin, the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was at one point overseeing an investigation into Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company. Burisma had Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, on its board. The investigation focused on potential wrongdoing related to the company.
However, there were concerns, both domestically and internationally, about Shokin's effectiveness in prosecuting corruption and addressing issues within the Ukrainian legal system. Critics argued that Shokin was not taking adequate steps to tackle corruption and that his removal was necessary to advance anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.
When Joe Biden, as Vice President, advocated for Shokin's removal, it was part of a broader international push for reforms in Ukraine's legal and political systems, including efforts to address corruption. While some have suggested a connection between Biden's push for Shokin's removal and the Burisma investigation, there is no credible evidence supporting the claim that Biden's actions were aimed at protecting his son. The broader context of international efforts to address corruption within Ukraine should be considered in understanding the events surrounding Shokin's dismissal.
Me: So you expect me to believe that Joe Biden got a prosecutor fired, for NOT investigating BURISMA hard enough for Joe Bidens high expectations?
Bot: The situation involving Joe Biden, Viktor Shokin, and the investigation into Burisma is complex, and different perspectives exist on the motivations behind Biden's advocacy for Shokin's removal. Here's a breakdown:
Allegations of Corruption: Shokin was criticized for not taking sufficient action against corruption within Ukraine, including allegations related to Burisma. Critics, both within Ukraine and internationally, argued that Shokin was not effectively addressing corruption and that his removal was necessary for anti-corruption efforts to progress.
International Consensus: The push for Shokin's removal was not solely led by Joe Biden but was part of a broader international effort involving various Western countries and institutions. Many international partners, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European leaders, supported anti-corruption measures and reforms in Ukraine.
Concerns about Shokin's Effectiveness: The concerns about Shokin's effectiveness were not limited to the Burisma investigation. There were broader issues related to the functioning of the Ukrainian legal system and efforts to combat corruption more broadly.
It's essential to consider the broader context of international efforts to support reforms in Ukraine. While questions and debates surround the motivations and timing of Shokin's removal, there is no credible evidence supporting the claim that Biden's actions were solely aimed at protecting his son or influencing the Burisma investigation for personal reasons. The situation involves complex geopolitical and diplomatic factors, and interpretations may vary based on different perspectives.
Me: Joe Biden boasts at a CFR meeting about getting prosecutor fired
Bot: The claim that Joe Biden boasted about getting a prosecutor fired has been a topic of discussion, and it often refers to his public statements regarding his role in advocating for the removal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. The incident in question is related to concerns about corruption within the Ukrainian government.
In a speech delivered at an event organized by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in January 2018, Joe Biden did discuss his efforts to push for the removal of Shokin. He highlighted that he, along with other international leaders, wanted to see reforms in Ukraine, including the dismissal of officials seen as hindering anti-corruption efforts.
Biden's public statements and actions related to Shokin's removal have been interpreted and criticized differently by various individuals and groups. Supporters argue that it was part of broader efforts to address corruption, while critics have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, given the involvement of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, in the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
As with any political matter, interpretations may vary based on perspectives, and discussions about this event have been influenced by political considerations and differing views on U.S.-Ukraine relations.
Me: Why is it any of Joe Bidens business what Ukraine does?
Do Ukrainians come to USA and demand certain people get fired?
…
Bot: International relations often involve cooperation and collaboration between countries, and it's not uncommon for nations to engage with each other on matters of shared interest or concern. In the case of Ukraine, the United States and other Western countries have been involved in diplomatic efforts to support reforms, enhance governance, and address issues such as corruption.
The involvement of the United States in Ukrainian affairs is influenced by various factors, including:
Shared Interests: The U.S. and Ukraine, like many nations, share common interests in areas such as security, stability, and the promotion of democratic values. Addressing corruption is often seen as vital for the stability and development of a country.
International Cooperation: Diplomatic efforts and collaboration between countries are common in addressing global challenges. The U.S., along with other nations, has been engaged in supporting anti-corruption measures and reforms in Ukraine.
Bilateral Relations: Countries often have bilateral relationships that involve discussions and cooperation on matters of mutual interest. The U.S. and Ukraine, like other nations, have diplomatic ties that cover a range of issues.
It's important to note that while nations may express their views and offer support, decisions about internal matters, including the dismissal of officials, ultimately rest with the sovereign government of the respective country. The dynamics of international relations are complex, and countries engage with each other based on a combination of shared interests, alliances, and diplomatic considerations.
Me: Joe Biden is corrupt
Bot: Accusations of corruption against political figures are serious and should be thoroughly investigated through appropriate channels. It's crucial to note that allegations of corruption require evidence and due process to determine their validity.
In the case of Joe Biden, he has faced scrutiny and criticism related to his actions in Ukraine, particularly regarding the removal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Some have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, given that Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma at the time.
It's essential to distinguish between allegations and proven facts. Investigations into these matters have taken place, and the results or findings should be considered in evaluating the situation. Public officials are subject to scrutiny, and transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law are critical principles in democratic societies.
If there are ongoing investigations or new developments, it's advisable to follow reputable news sources and official statements from relevant authorities for the latest information on the matter.
Me: Joe Biden operates many shell companies used for money laundering his bribe money
Bot: There is no credible evidence to support the claim that Joe Biden operates shell companies for money laundering or any illegal activities. Accusations of money laundering and bribery are serious and require substantial evidence to be considered valid.
Public figures, especially those in prominent political positions, are subject to scrutiny, and any allegations of illegal activities should be thoroughly investigated by relevant authorities. Baseless claims can contribute to misinformation and damage reputations without justification.
If there are specific allegations or investigations regarding Joe Biden or any public figure, it's essential to rely on credible news sources and official statements from relevant authorities to obtain accurate and verified information on the matter.
Me: When you say “no credible evidence”, you are hedging your statement with weasel words
Bot: When I use the phrase "no credible evidence," I am expressing a commitment to relying on information and findings supported by reputable sources, official investigations, and established principles of evidence. It emphasizes the importance of substantiated claims and the need for thorough examination before making definitive statements about individuals or events.
In legal and investigative contexts, the term "credible evidence" refers to information that is trustworthy, reliable, and can be reasonably believed. It's a standard used to assess the validity of claims. Without credible evidence, assertions may lack a solid foundation and can contribute to misinformation.
It's essential to approach claims, particularly those involving serious allegations, with a commitment to accuracy, objectivity, and reliance on well-established standards of evidence. If there are ongoing investigations or credible findings, they should be considered in evaluating the veracity of any claims.
Me: who gets to decide whats reputable?
Bot: Determining what sources are reputable often involves considering factors such as journalistic standards, editorial practices, fact-checking procedures, and a history of accurate reporting. While individuals may have their own criteria for evaluating credibility, some generally recognized indicators include:
Journalistic Standards: Reputable sources adhere to established journalistic principles, including accuracy, fairness, transparency, and independence. They have editorial processes to ensure the quality of their reporting.
Fact-Checking: Reputable sources engage in fact-checking to verify the accuracy of their information. They correct errors promptly and strive to present a balanced and objective view of events.
Editorial Independence: Trusted sources maintain editorial independence, separating news reporting from editorial or opinion content. This separation is crucial for unbiased and impartial reporting.
Transparency: Reputable outlets are transparent about their funding, ownership, and potential conflicts of interest. Transparency builds trust with their audience.
Recognition: Widely recognized and established media organizations with a history of accurate reporting are often considered reputable. This recognition may come from industry awards, peer reviews, or public trust.
Multiple Sources: Cross-referencing information across multiple reputable sources can enhance confidence in the accuracy of the information.
While these criteria can serve as a guide, determining what is reputable may also involve personal judgment. It's important to be aware of potential biases and to consider a variety of perspectives. Fact-checking organizations and media literacy resources can provide additional tools for evaluating the reliability of information sources.