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
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.