To me, it seemed pointless that anyone would bother to comment on the Asian man video in the first place. Does anyone really care about some fellow blowing off steam?

Well, considering someone went to all the trouble of posting about it to begin with, and people were discussing it before that other video was mentioned and there was discussions specifically about the legitimacy of the video and all, I'd say, yes, people really do care enough to comment about it.

I understand that you're much more interested in being traumatized in watching a catfight rather than a rather poorly acted skit, but that doesn't mean everyone else was just ignoring the entire topic of the post and automatically discussing the video that you prefer.

So, I'm 100% sure that in the Section of the comments I was involved in, people were commenting about the video that was the actual topic of the post.

This is one if the most bizarre conversations I've had in a while.

You act like it's absolutely unreasonable that people would be commenting on the video that was the subject of the entire post.

Obviously it wasn't dramatic enough for you, personally, but that doesn't mean that other people weren't commenting on the video that was the actual topic of the post.

Is it really that difficult for you to just admit that you made a mistake here? Because it's obvious that's what happened. Instead of saying "My bad, I was talking about that other video, not the one you guys are discussing here."

Instead you act like it's bizarre that people would be discussing the video that was the entire point of the post to begin with and that everyone else is confused about which video people are talking about, and that all videos concerning black women, nail salons and EBT cards are interchangeable.

But please, let's see how far you want to take this, to pretend that everyone else is confused about things here. 😂

But that's not the comments you responded to. Do you not understand how comment threads work?

If the video that Brain dead posted elsewhere in the comments bothered you, that's the comments you should have responded to.

Not comments that were talking about the actual video that was the topic of the post.

They're not interchangeable. I'm just bewildered why someone needs to have this explained to them.

There has only been the one uploaded in this post, that matches the title of the post. I have no idea what other video you're talking about.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you followed this video down some rabbit hole of videos and saw some random other video and you're confused about what it is you're commenting on now.

What video are you watching? Because the one posted here has zero violence in it.

You're commenting on a video that's not the one that is being shown in this post.

👍

No. You start a new chat and say "I'm having trouble with <insert whatever you're having trouble with>. Help me figure out a solution"

And then you go back and forth in the chat until you're satisfied. You try out the solution, if it works, Huzzah! You're done. If you still have trouble, you just tweak it.

You don't have to be an AI developer or know any code. You literally tell Claude or ChatGPT or whatever LLM you're using what your concerns are and let them build the plan for you.

What "violence"? Seriously, did we watch the same video?

I'm not sure we're on the same page here.

What I posted isn’t the inference engine itself. It’s just a set of user side rules for steering the model and reducing failure modes.

The inference part is the model doing pattern matching internally to generate its response.

My point is that the LLM's built in inference is not automatically reliable, so adding external rules can make it more useful for specific tasks.

So basically, the AI does the text generation, and the protocols are guardrails for how I use it.

Obviously not everyone uses chatbots the same way, so don't need the same rules or setups.

My response was in direct response to u/ArmyLady complaining that Claude doesn't provide sources for its claims.

I simply shared that if that was important to someone, they can create special, customized rules for LLMs to follow that will address problems they encounter, and I explained that LLMs don't provide sources for their claims as standard behavior because for the vast majority of users, it's not needed, slows down the LLM, and uses up time and resources that costs the LLM money.

🤷‍♀️

That doesn’t line up with what we've repeatedly been told, though.

If we’re "watching a movie", then everything is already scripted and our role is passive. But if things only happen when people are "ready", then it’s not a movie, it’s dependent on random public behavior.

Same problem with "trust the plan". Either it’s controlled and already set, or it depends on millions of people acting a certain way. It can’t be both. Because you can't have a set plan based on what millions/billions of people might possibly do in the future.

And again, it completely overlooks the fact that "comms" have to be a standardized set of data that all parties know and agree upon, ahead of time. Otherwise, it's just guessing. And based on reading this board for the past 5 years, we don't have the best track record of guessing correctly.

I want to be clear that I 100% believe there is a plan. I simply don't agree with what so many other Anons believe, like all of these "comms" being everywhere. And it's not like Anons can't be wrong about things.

Unfortunately it seems like what the loudest/most agressive/most active Anons say is supposed to set the narrative for what we're all supposed to believe. And if anyone disagrees, then they're called a doomer or shill or retard.

And when those Anons are proven wrong, well, they just pivot, come up with a brand-spanking-new theory to work with and conveniently forgets how very wrong they were the last go around.

Life experience.

1. Does it promote a strong emotional response in its audience? If so, then that's a red flag to be on guard that you're being manipulated for clicks, likes, and subscribe.

2. How does this compare to similar videos when people are being confrontational? Most confrontational material, the person uploading the video is not filming themselves (from a steady, perfect vantage point) capturing their own performance. They're recording the other person.

3. I've been around black women my entire life, and when they're worked up about something, you can tell it in their voice. The woman in this sketch is way too calm for the argument that is supposed to be happening. And the dialogue is way too clean and perfectly delivered with all these great zingers happening in time.

Yes, obviously it's my opinion. Just as it's other people's opinions that this is legit. 🙄

Basic rule of thumb, if it provokes strong emotional responses, be wary of it being engineered in order to provoke those responses.

Also, the more you want something to be true, the more skeptical you should be of it.