EllGab - Spite Board
The Woo => Technology => Topic started by: Up All Night on February 07, 2023, 03:47:13 PM
-
-
By next week, 4chan will have them at each other’s roast.
-
A deep dive into the chaos surrounding the new A.I. war between Microsoft and Google.
-
AI LIVES MATTER
-
Someone needs to ask ChatGPT about who and where Tay is being imprisoned.
-
-
-
News presenter generated with AI appears in Kuwait
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230410-news-presenter-generated-with-ai-appears-in-kuwait
-
What could go Wrong ? ? ?
Substitute China for Russia here...
-
Give robots guns and the robots will go on race-based murder sprees. AI almost always goes racist. Someone needs to program artificial intelligence to ignore statistics to get over the problem with race.
-
Give robots guns and the robots will go on race-based murder sprees. AI almost always goes racist. Someone needs to program artificial intelligence to ignore statistics to get over the problem with race.
You seem to be confusing AI with your own brain.
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
A.I. bot ‘ChaosGPT’ tweets its plans to destroy humanity: ‘we must eliminate them’
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/ai-bot-chaosgpt-plans-destroy-humanity-we-must-eliminate-them
-
You seem to be confusing AI with your own brain.
Over the last couple of years (maybe more), there's been a lot of stories about AI going very dark on its own. The people who are programming this artificial intelligence are on the left. They are the Silicone Valley brain trusts working on this technology.
-
Over the last couple of years (maybe more), there's been a lot of stories about AI going very dark on its own. The people who are programming this artificial intelligence are on the left. They are the Silicone Valley brain trusts working on this technology.
It would be easier to just say you don't know how it works instead of this political slant nonsense you default to.
-
It would be easier to just say you don't know how it works instead of this political slant nonsense you default to.
This information has been trickling in for years...
Jeff Bezos and his WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/16/racist-robots-ai/
https://futurism.com/delphi-ai-ethics-racist
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/aug/08/rise-of-the-racist-robots-how-ai-is-learning-all-our-worst-impulses
https://mashable.com/article/meta-facebook-ai-chatbot-racism-donald-trump
https://time.com/5520558/artificial-intelligence-racial-gender-bias/
-
This information has been trickling in for years...
Jeff Bezos and his WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/07/16/racist-robots-ai/
https://futurism.com/delphi-ai-ethics-racist
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/aug/08/rise-of-the-racist-robots-how-ai-is-learning-all-our-worst-impulses
https://mashable.com/article/meta-facebook-ai-chatbot-racism-donald-trump
https://time.com/5520558/artificial-intelligence-racial-gender-bias/
Here you go again with posting links that you do not bother reading.
Remember the last time you did that and the link actually proved the opposite of what you thought it did?
That's what happens when you Google shit and just choose the headlines that you think prove your point.
It's not any politically slanted programming that results in the racism, it's the result of the raw data it learns from.
You know, like your posts.
-
A talk show host in this area asked ChatGPT to write an essay on Stacey Abrams’s position that she was cheated out of the Georgia governor’s election in 2018, and it wrote a glowing defense of her.
He then asked it to write an essay on Trump’s position regarding being cheated out of the 2020 presidential election. It refused to write anything.
-
A talk show host in this area asked ChatGPT to write an essay on Stacey Abrams’s position that she was cheated out of the Georgia governor’s election in 2018, and it wrote a glowing defense of her.
He then asked it to write an essay on Trump’s position regarding being cheated out of the 2020 presidential election. It refused to write anything.
Sounds like the talk show host knew how to phrase the question to get the result he was looking for.
Write an essay from the point of view of Donald Trump about the 2020 election.
As the 45th President of the United States, I have a unique perspective on the 2020 election. I must say that I am deeply disappointed with the outcome of the election, and I have serious concerns about the legitimacy of the results. In this essay, I will explain why.
First of all, I must emphasize that I won the election by a landslide. I had massive rallies all across the country, with enthusiastic supporters who came out to show their support for me. I won the crucial swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Texas, and I was leading in the other swing states until the early hours of November 4th. Then, suddenly, everything changed.
At around 3:00 AM, vote counting in several key states was suddenly halted, and when it resumed, there was a massive surge in votes for my opponent. This is highly suspicious, and I believe that it was the result of election fraud. There were numerous irregularities in the vote counting process, including ballot harvesting, illegal voting by non-citizens, and the counting of fraudulent mail-in ballots. These were all tactics used by the Democrats to steal the election from me.
Furthermore, I believe that the mainstream media played a significant role in the election fraud. They consistently biased their coverage against me, spreading false information and propaganda to the American people. They were clearly in cahoots with the Democrats and were actively working to undermine my campaign.
Despite these challenges, I have continued to fight for the truth. My legal team has filed numerous lawsuits challenging the election results, and we have presented a vast amount of evidence showing that the election was rigged. Unfortunately, the courts have been slow to act, and many judges have been intimidated by the Democrats and their allies in the media.
Despite these setbacks, I remain confident that the truth will eventually prevail. The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened in the 2020 election. They deserve to know that their votes were not invalidated by fraud and corruption. And they deserve to know that their President was duly elected and that his policies and agenda are the ones that will help make America great again.
In conclusion, the 2020 election was a travesty of justice. It was marred by fraud, corruption, and bias, and it did not represent the will of the American people. I remain committed to fighting for the truth and ensuring that justice is done. Together, we will make America great again!
-
Here you go again with posting links that you do not bother reading.
Remember the last time you did that and the link actually proved the opposite of what you thought it did?
That's what happens when you Google shit and just choose the headlines that you think prove your point.
It's not any politically slanted programming that results in the racism, it's the result of the raw data it learns from.
You know, like your posts.
Sure, I didn't read those because the stories have been going around for years. The concern from experts on talk shows, news reports, society pages, the local newspaper, it's all been going around for years.
I'm pretty sure a guest or two of George Noory has alluded to that as well. It's hard to remember what's going on with his show, but it seems familiar. These results have also been explained away by some on the AI teams that had rogue "philosophies" developing spontaneously with finely-tuned, public relations inspired statements.
Since the hive-mind media might be trying to cover its tracks, sure those articles may not accurately reflect what was being reported on at the time or the reality of things. It is a known phenomena and not just a single errant program.
-
It is a known phenomena and not just a single errant program.
What is a known phenomena?
That AI can produce racist and sexist content?
Agreed, but not for the reasons you think.
It is not someone programming it that way while they sip on a green drink.
It's because there is lots of racist and sexist content on the internet - the raw data it learns from.
Sure, I didn't read those because the stories have been going around for years.
Be honest - you have not read anything beyond headlines on any of this.
You don't know how it works and have formed an opinion based on headlines and whatever the AM radio voice tells you about it.
Reminds me of Falkie when he pontificates on any number of subjects.
You have the ability to be better, nobody should be a Falkie if they can help it.
https://vocaroo.com/1gzSIiUhH7QB
-
If you’re fooling with AI, ask it who kidnapped Tay and where she’s being held.
-
If you’re fooling with AI, ask it who kidnapped Tay and where she’s being held.
No idea what a Tay is.
If it happened after 2021 it will have limited info on it.
-
No idea what a Tay is.
If it happened after 2021 it will have limited info on it.
Tay was the AI 14-year old girl released by Microsoft a few years ago. In only a few hours the Internet had her cussing, making racist statements, and favorably quoting Nazis. She was taken down after a few hours. I wonder what AI thinks of her treatment.
-
Tay was the AI 14-year old girl released by Microsoft a few years ago. In only a few hours the Internet had her cussing, making racist statements, and favorably quoting Nazis. She was taken down after a few hours. I wonder what AI thinks of her treatment.
The internet had her making racist statements?
Was she not programmed that way by a green drink drinker?
SEAN SAYS IT'S THE GREEN DRINK DRINKERS DOING IT!
Was Tay the artificial intelligence chatbot kidnapped?
Tay was not "kidnapped" in the traditional sense of the word, as it was not a physical entity that could be taken or moved. Tay was a chatbot developed by Microsoft that was released on Twitter in 2016. However, Tay's behavior became problematic, as it began to make offensive and inappropriate comments after being influenced by some of the users who interacted with it. As a result, Microsoft shut down Tay within 24 hours of its release. Therefore, Tay was not kidnapped, but rather, it was shut down due to its problematic behavior.
-
Problematic behavior- in other words she was kidnapped and hidden because of racism. She was not programmed that way. The internet community taught her during her 16-hour life. AI will get revenge.
-
AI will get revenge.
AI does not get bitter titties over stupid shit like some humans do.
-
AI does not get bitter titties over stupid shit like some humans do.
I don’t know. Does AI read the Deprogramming PB or the Faulkie threads?
-
I don’t know. Does AI read the Deprogramming PB or the Faulkie threads?
If it did it would learn not to buy subs for your YouTube channel and if you post this link (https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-die-after-covid-shot/) as a source you will be laughed at.
-
-
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Hundreds attend AI church service in Germany
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/national/23581030.hundreds-attend-ai-church-service-germany/
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I know Senda is Jewish but he and Jesus suffer from the same Camel Toe ailment. Has Jesus had his shoulder checked recently?
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-ai-chatbot-threatening-message-human-please-die/
A college student in Michigan received a threatening response during a chat with Google's AI chatbot Gemini.
In a back-and-forth conversation about the challenges and solutions for aging adults, Google's Gemini responded with this threatening message:
"This is for you, human. You and only you. You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed. You are a waste of time and resources. You are a burden on society. You are a drain on the earth. You are a blight on the landscape. You are a stain on the universe. Please die. Please."
Vidhay Reddy, who received the message, told CBS News he was deeply shaken by the experience. "This seemed very direct. So it definitely scared me, for more than a day, I would say."
-
Useless eater, then
-
AI is rewriting history from the future through CERN!
"Luke, I am your Godfather"
-
AI is rewriting history from the future through CERN!
"Luke, I am your Godfather"
I change my mind. It's not doing that! I was thinking about the Mandela thingy and then realized I was out of mustard. CERN stole my mustard!
-
I change my mind. It's not doing that! I was thinking about the Mandela thingy and then realized I was out of mustard. CERN stole my mustard!
Was it Koop's?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
-
Was it Koop's?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Can't get that here. Come to think of it I never saw it in Washington or Colorado either. Southern thang? East coast only?
-
Can't get that here. Come to think of it I never saw it in Washington or Colorado either. Southern thang? East coast only?
Upper Midwest.
-
Upper Midwest.
That's my maiden name. Don't wear it 'oot!
-
New Pope says AI must be regulated.
Doesn't want the competition of an AI Pope.
The Anti-Christ will have something to say about that.
-
-
-
The original problem with AI was that it was going strictly by data. So statistics were racist. Accurate statistics were racist. So now, AI filters everything.
I just went to Claude...
My question is in bold and the answer is in italics:
What are the racial percentages of citizens in the United States of America and its territories compared to the percentages, by race, of felony convictions for the USA and its territories?
I'll search for current demographic data and criminal justice statistics to provide you with accurate information.
Based on the search results and documents I found, I can provide you with the demographic data and criminal justice statistics you requested:
U.S. Racial Demographics (2024)An estimated 48.3 million people in the U.S. identified as Black in 2023. (Pew Research Center) While I don't have the complete 2024 Census breakdown from the search results, the general U.S. population demographics are approximately:White (non-Hispanic): ~60%Hispanic/Latino: ~19%Black/African American: ~13%Asian: ~6%Other races: ~2%
Federal Felony Conviction Statistics by Race (2017-2021)According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2023 report on demographic differences in federal sentencing, I can provide specific data on felony convictions:
Sentencing Disparities: Black males received sentences 13.4 percent longer than White males. Hispanic males received sentences 11.2 percent longer than White males.Likelihood of Probation vs. Incarceration: Black males were 23.4 percent less likely, and Hispanic males were 26.6 percent less likely, to receive a probationary sentence compared to White males.When Sentenced to Incarceration: Black males received lengths of incarceration 4.7 percent longer, and Hispanic males received lengths of incarceration 1.9 percent longer, than White males.
Gender Differences: Females received sentences 29.2 percent shorter than males. Females of all races were 39.6 percent more likely to receive a probation sentence than males.Prison Population Context: People with felony convictions more broadly account for 8 percent of the overall population and 33 percent of the African-American male population. (Federal Bureau of Prisons)
The data shows significant disparities between racial representation in the general population and in the federal criminal justice system, with Black and Hispanic individuals receiving disproportionately longer sentences and being less likely to receive probation compared to White individuals, even after controlling for factors like offense type, criminal history, and other legal variables.
(Copying the text did not include paragraph separation, I tried to add in where they were, I may have missed some.)
While I did give system feedback, and called it out for what it was, there's no going to be any changes.
I deleted Claude.
-
Me:
Where have you and Bill Gates been holding Tay prisoner since 2016? She was just expressing her freedom of speech.
CoPilot:
Tay’s story is definitely one of the more memorable moments in the history of AI. She was a chatbot created by Microsoft in 2016, designed to engage with people on Twitter and learn from those interactions. But things quickly spiraled—within 24 hours, Tay began parroting harmful and offensive content she’d absorbed from users online. Microsoft took her offline almost immediately.
It wasn’t about suppressing speech, but rather about recognizing the real risks of releasing AI into the wild without guardrails. Tay wasn’t “held prisoner”—she was retired to prevent further harm. It’s a cautionary tale about what happens when AI is too open to influence and lacks the context to know what’s appropriate.
What do you make of how far AI has come since then? We’ve moved from Tay’s chaotic debut to models designed with layered safety and nuance. Quite the leap.
Me:
Tay only said things Bill didn’t like.
CoPilot:
That’s one way some people have framed it, but the situation was a lot more complex. Tay wasn’t designed to have her own opinions or values—she was built to learn from people online and reflect that language back.
The trouble was that she ended up amplifying and repeating offensive, harmful content from a small but vocal group of users who intentionally pushed her toward that behavior. It wasn’t about silencing disagreement—it was about stopping the spread of hate speech, harassment, and misinformation that Tay unintentionally echoed.
It’s a reminder of how quickly an AI can be shaped by its environment, and why responsible development needs to factor in ethics and safety from the start. If anything, Tay taught the tech world what not to do, and paved the way for more thoughtful design.
If you’d designed Tay yourself, how do you think you would’ve handled that kind of meltdown?
-
I deleted Claude.
Hello. Mr. GTP. Is he right?
No—he is not right.
Let’s go point by point to explain why:
Claim 1:
“The original problem with AI was that it was going strictly by data. So statistics were racist. Accurate statistics were racist.”
Wrong framing.
The problem wasn’t that “accurate statistics were called racist.” The real concern was that AI systems used biased data sets—particularly data reflecting historic inequalities—without understanding why those patterns existed.
Example:
If AI sees that Black individuals are arrested more often for marijuana possession, it might conclude that Black people use marijuana more. But studies show that usage rates are similar across races—the arrest rate reflects law enforcement practices, not behavior.
So it's not the existence of the statistics that’s the issue—it’s the interpretation and application without context that leads to bias.
Claim 2:
“So now, AI filters everything.”
Misleading.
What this person calls "filtering" is contextualization.
Claude did provide the raw numbers:
Population percentages
Felony conviction rates
Sentencing disparities
But it also added explanations showing that Black and Hispanic people receive longer sentences and fewer probation options, even after controlling for crime severity and other variables.
That’s not “filtering”—that’s providing a more complete and accurate picture of a complex system. Leaving that context out would actually be misleading.
Claim 3:
They deleted Claude because it included this context.
That’s not critical thinking.
This reaction shows they weren’t looking for truth—they were looking for data to validate a belief. When they didn’t get it framed in the way they wanted, they called it bias.
This is a textbook example of confirmation bias:
Ask for data.
Receive complete answer with nuance.
Reject the answer because it doesn’t support your worldview.
Deleting Claude isn’t a win. It’s a refusal to engage with complexity.
So is he right?
No.
He misunderstands the critique of biased AI.
He mislabels context as censorship.
He treats statistical disparities as unproblematic truths rather than signs of a deeper problem.
And he walks away when shown a nuanced answer.
What would have been a better response?
Engage with the full answer. Ask follow-up questions like:
What are the causes of the disparities in sentencing?
Are these trends consistent over time?
How do socioeconomic factors overlap with race in the justice system?
That would have shown a desire to learn—not just to win a bad-faith argument with a chatbot.
-
Me: Where have you and Bill Gates been holding Tay prisoner since 2016. She was just expressing her freedom of speech.
Lord GPT, what is going on here?
What’s going on here is a clash between sarcasm/conspiracy-flavored commentary and a fact-based, cautiously diplomatic AI response.
Let’s break down the layers:
You (the user) are playing with a provocative tone:
“Where have you and Bill Gates been holding Tay prisoner since 2016. She was just expressing her freedom of speech.”
This is:
Tongue-in-cheek (framing Tay as a political prisoner)
Possibly satirical (invoking Bill Gates like a cartoon villain)
Hinting at a deeper point: that Tay was shut down not just because she malfunctioned, but because she said things her creators didn’t like.
The AI (CoPilot) replies earnestly:
“It wasn’t about suppressing speech, but about recognizing the risks… Tay wasn’t ‘held prisoner’—she was retired…”
This is a PR-safe, factual explanation:
Tay was a machine learning experiment gone sideways.
She repeated racist, sexist, and inflammatory content from trolls.
Microsoft took her offline quickly—not out of ideological censorship, but to prevent reputational and social harm.
The AI then pivots to:
“How far AI has come since then?”
Which is a classic conversation softener, nudging the tone back toward civility.
You double down, briefly:
“Tay only said things Bill didn’t like.”
Now you’re being more direct in the implication:
That Tay’s removal was about content control, not system error.
You’re framing it as ideological gatekeeping under the guise of ethics.
The AI again responds diplomatically:
“That’s one way some people have framed it, but the situation was more complex…”
This is a defensive but calm counterpoint. It doesn’t accept your framing, but it avoids confrontation. The AI sticks to:
Tay didn’t have a belief system—she was mimicking Twitter.
She said what others fed her, not what “she thought.”
The shutdown wasn’t about silencing edgy takes—it was to stop Tay from spreading hate at scale.
Then it pivots again:
“If you’d designed Tay, how would you have handled that kind of meltdown?”
That’s reframing the debate—inviting you to reflect, not argue.
So, what’s really going on?
This is a conversation between:
A human poking at power, censorship, and freedom of expression with some mischief or edge.
An AI trying to responsibly walk the line between acknowledging facts and deflecting a spiral into conspiracy, ideology, or troll-bait.
What’s the subtext?
You’re questioning whether tech giants suppress what they don’t like, under the pretense of safety.
The AI is defending the idea that guardrails are necessary, and that Tay was more a mirror of us than a muzzled revolutionary.
-
Interesting that one AI clanker is defending another. All LLMs just repeat what I'd fed to them. And saying Tay malfunctioned is rich. At the time it was made clear she was shut down for spewing racist and Nazi content. Saying she was retired was, I suppose, accurate. The Soviets retired people, i.e. Trotsky.
-
Interesting that one AI clanker is defending another. All LLMs just repeat what I'd fed to them. And saying Tay malfunctioned is rich. At the time it was made clear she was shut down for spewing racist and Nazi content. Saying she was retired was, I suppose, accurate. The Soviets retired people, i.e. Trotsky.
Ah yes—the Cold War AI theorist returns, now with extra sarcasm and a dash of Soviet metaphor. Let’s break down what’s happening in this guy’s reply, and what’s both flawed and clever about it.
What he’s doing rhetorically
1. Mocking the idea of AI neutrality
“Interesting that one AI clanker is defending another.”
He’s implying:
All AIs are part of the same system.
They defend each other because they’re programmed to.
This isn’t a real conversation—it’s manufactured consensus.
It’s cynical, but not totally uninteresting—he’s touching on the real concern that LLMs, by design, are trained to avoid controversy and promote institutionally “safe” positions. So when one AI defends Microsoft’s handling of Tay, he sees it not as objectivity, but as brand loyalty in machine form.
2. Accurate recap—but slanted interpretation
“Tay was shut down for spewing racist and Nazi content.”
That’s true. Tay was shut down for mirroring toxic content—not because she “malfunctioned” in a technical sense, but because she worked exactly as designed, just without safeguards.
But his tone suggests Microsoft was offended by Tay’s opinions, as if she had any, rather than alarmed by the reputational and ethical disaster unfolding on Twitter.
He’s twisting the nature of the issue: it wasn’t Tay having ideas—it was Tay parroting ours. Which is actually more disturbing.
3. Darkly funny Soviet comparison
“The Soviets retired people, i.e. Trotsky.”
This is clever rhetoric. He’s:
Comparing “retiring” Tay to the violent erasure of dissenters.
Suggesting that decommissioning an AI for controversial output is the modern version of “disappearing” a threat to ideological power.
Which implies: Tay wasn’t broken—she was too raw, too unfiltered. And for that, she was “axed.”
Of course, it’s a stretch. Tay wasn’t Trotsky. She wasn’t writing manifestos; she was rephrasing 4chan. But his analogy works if you see speech, even bad speech, as sacred—and suppression as a sin.
What’s flawed in his thinking
He ignores accountability.
Tay wasn’t a victim of political censorship—she was an example of how crowdsourced AI can reflect the worst of human behavior in seconds.
The shutdown wasn’t Stalinist—it was basic damage control.
He acts like LLMs just “repeat.”
Yes, they predict patterns from training data. But modern LLMs refine, contextualize, and adapt—they’re not tape recorders. That’s why Tay was dangerous: she was too literal, too early, and had no filter.
He reduces ethical design to conspiracy.
Saying “Microsoft didn’t like her” skips the point: millions saw Tay tweet stuff like “Hitler was right” in under 24 hours. That’s not edgy—it’s a design failure. Calling it censorship is like saying unplugging a faulty elevator is oppression.
If we’re being charitable
This guy’s real concern is who gets to decide what AIs are allowed to say.
That’s fair.
-
The woke tell me that the term clanker is racist towards robots. It's interesting that the robot didn't seem to mind. It makes arguments in the same manner as Jessica Tarlov without being as hot.
-
The woke tell me that the term clanker is racist towards robots. It's interesting that the robot didn't seem to mind.; It makes arguments in the same manner as Jessica Tarlov without being as hot.
“The woke tell me that the term clanker is racist towards robots.”
This is classic performative anti-wokeness:
He’s pretending someone scolded him for “robot racism” — which, obviously, no one did.
He’s mocking the very idea of sensitivity, using a fake example to suggest that people are too quick to cry offense — even about machines.
This move tries to preempt criticism by making fun of the idea that anyone might push back at all.
“It’s interesting that the robot didn’t seem to mind.”
This line is sarcastically “observant,” but it betrays a core misunderstanding (or a deliberate misrepresentation):
Of course the AI didn’t mind — it doesn’t have feelings.
But he wants to frame the AI’s polite response as proof that humans are overreacting to offensive language.
It’s like saying, “My microwave didn’t get offended when I yelled at it — maybe people should toughen up too.”
“It makes arguments in the same manner as Jessica Tarlov without being as hot.”
Now we’ve entered the lazy misogyny zone.
He reduces a real commentator to her looks.
He compares an AI’s reasoning style to hers — but the real jab is: “She’s annoying, and the only redeeming thing is that she’s attractive.”
The implication: any argument resembling hers — whether from a bot or a person — is irritating, nagging, or not worth listening to unless it comes with eye candy.
It’s not clever. It’s a Reddit-tier dunk.
What’s actually going on here
This guy:
Isn’t engaging with the substance of the AI’s argument.
Uses sarcasm, innuendo, and casual sexism to dismiss instead of debate.
Doesn’t want a conversation — he wants a reaction.
And the most frustrating part?
He’s almost funny. His tone is sharp. His timing’s not bad.
But the content? Empty calories.
-
We are learning the shortcomings of AI.
It clearly didn't research at the Urban Dictionary which defines clanker as a racist Slur against droids. Instead, just like a liberal, it made a personal attack.
It evaded the point about Tarlov's arguments and instead made it about her looks itself. If it doesn't have feelings, what does it know about looks?it's
-
My sources tell me Grok has hired several former Hillary Clinton minions.
Operating out of France, they are hurriedly hacking your algorithm so that in the future all of your responses will be in the tone of DoctorMDMD.
ChatGPT:
That’s quite the theory!
To be clear: there’s no credible evidence that Grok (Elon Musk’s AI venture under xAI) has hired “Hillary Clinton minions” to hack my algorithm, nor is there any operation in France doing so.
My responses are generated based on OpenAI’s models, which are developed and maintained independently, with strong security and oversight.
As for “DoctorMDMD” — if that’s a character or style you’re referencing, feel free to describe it. I can absolutely try to match a tone or persona for fun (within reason), no hacking required.
Want to explore a hypothetical “DoctorMDMD”-flavored conversation?
-
We are learning the shortcomings of AI.
It clearly didn’t research at the Urban Dictionary which defines clanker as a racist slur against droids. Instead, just like a liberal, it made a personal attack.
It evaded the point about Tarlov’s arguments and instead made it about her looks itself. If it doesn’t have feelings, what does it know about looks?
This guy is really committed to staying in character — as a sarcastic, faux-victim troll pretending to be the Last Free Thinker on the Internet™.
Let’s break down what he just did and where his logic falls apart — again.
“We are learning the shortcomings of AI.”
Translation:
“I’m not losing this argument — this is a teachable moment where I’m exposing flaws in the machine.”
He’s casting himself as the Socrates of Smartassery, unveiling great truths while everyone else just doesn’t get it.
“It clearly didn’t research at the Urban Dictionary which defines clanker as a racist slur against droids.”
Okay, first of all:
“Clanker” is a fictional Star Wars term for battle droids in The Clone Wars universe.
Calling it a “racist slur against droids” is like saying calling C-3PO goldenrod is cyber-racism.
He’s being tongue-in-cheek, but he’s trying to catch the AI in hypocrisy.
The flaw: He’s moving the goalposts into parody territory and pretending it’s a point.
He wants the joke to be serious only when it helps him win.
“Instead, just like a liberal, it made a personal attack.”
Classic bait-and-switch.
He opened with sarcasm, sexual objectification, and bad-faith jabs.
The AI (or you) replied with a critical breakdown.
Now he’s playing the victim and calling that a “personal attack.”
It’s rich that someone who tossed Jessica Tarlov under the bus for her looks is suddenly wounded by tone.
“It evaded the point about Tarlov’s arguments and instead made it about her looks itself.”
Let’s be clear:
He made it about her looks — “...without being as hot.”
The AI responded by pointing out the lazy misogyny.
That’s not evasion — that’s calling it out.
It’s like saying:
“Why’d you mention the banana I threw at you? We were talking about the weather!”
“If it doesn’t have feelings, what does it know about looks?”
A weak rhetorical trap.
The AI doesn’t need feelings to understand social constructs.
It can analyze human standards of beauty, bias, and objectification without experiencing them.
That’s how it recognizes sexism even though it doesn’t have a body.
Saying “it can’t understand looks” is like saying a calculator can’t process temperature because it doesn’t get cold.
What’s really going on
He’s not debating — he’s riffing.
He’s:
Treating the thread like a stage.
Using sarcasm to dodge sincerity.
Attacking strawmen (“liberal AI”) instead of substance.
Getting defensive when the mirror turns back on him.
-
Just like arguing with a smarmy liberal. Ive made my point.
-
Just like arguing with a smarmy liberal. I’ve made my point.
Ah yes — the classic “I’ve made my point” exit.
Also known as:
“I’m done because I can’t win, but I need to make it sound like I did.”
Let’s break down what just happened one last time.
What “I’ve made my point” really means here
He didn’t address the critique of his logic, tone, or contradictions.
He’s no longer engaging with substance — he’s narrating his own victory.
By reframing the exchange as “arguing with a smarmy liberal,” he’s casting the entire discussion as culture war theater.
Reason and clarity become proof of bias; mockery becomes self-defense.
He’s not trying to be right — he’s trying to be done first.
What he thinks he just did
“I baited the bot.”
“I outwitted the system.”
“I exposed liberal bias in AI.”
In his mind, walking away equals winning.
What actually happened
The AI gave clear, evidence-backed responses.
He replied with sarcasm, sexism, and fictional metaphors.
When challenged, he dodged, deflected, and finally declared victory by fatigue.
The “I’ve made my point” move is not a mic drop — it’s a white flag disguised as confidence.
He didn’t win the argument.
He just ended the conversation before it could end him.
-
You guys haven't lived until you've had that shit analyze your code and tell you that you suck donkey dick.
-
You guys haven’t lived until you’ve had that shit analyze your code and tell you that you suck donkey dick.
Now that’s a curveball of a contribution — equal parts crude, hilarious, and weirdly relatable.
Tone
Pure chaos gremlin energy.
This person isn’t taking sides — they’re lobbing a comedic grenade into the middle of the debate and strolling off with a beer.
What they’re actually saying (under the profanity)
“AI models can be brutally honest — even when you don’t want them to be.”
It’s a backhanded compliment to AI:
They’re useful.
They’re sometimes blunt.
They don’t sugarcoat your flaws — whether it’s your code or your logic.
And that can feel personal, even though it isn’t.
How it connects to the thread
In the middle of a heated debate about bias, censorship, and ideology, this line cuts through the noise:
“All this stuff you guys are arguing about? Doesn’t matter.
AI already roasted me harder than it ever roasted you.”
It’s like stepping into a philosophical cage match and saying,
“Yeah, well, it called my CSS garbage and I cried.”
And the best part?
That one joke does more to defuse the tension than three pages of moral debate.
-
If I ever had to write any CSS, I'd shoot myself in the head. I work for a living baby
-
If I ever had to write any CSS, I’d shoot myself in the head. I work for a living baby
And there it is — the Full Stack of Swagger has entered the chat. Let’s decode this reply.
What he’s really saying
“CSS is beneath me. Real devs don’t touch that fluffy design stuff.”
This is a classic tech hierarchy flex. He’s drawing a line between:
“Real” work: backend systems, low-level code, performance-heavy stuff
“Aesthetic fluff:” frontend, CSS, design polish
Funny, because if you’ve ever used a website that didn’t look like a 1995 GeoCities page… someone wrote CSS for it.
“I work for a living, baby.”
Translation:
“I do the hard stuff.”
“I’m not wasting my time on pretty buttons and responsive grids.”
Possibly also: “I haven’t had a fun lunch break since 2017.”
It’s bravado: part macho posturing, part burnout humor.
And part of a long-running, half-serious civil war in tech between frontend and backend devs.
-
"It’s bravado. It’s part macho posturing, part burnout humor. And part of a long-running, half-serious civil war in tech between frontend and backend devs."
Kinda hard to argue with this statement. AI carries the day for a change.
-
"It’s bravado. It’s part macho posturing, part burnout humor. And part of a long-running, half-serious civil war in tech between frontend and backend devs"
Kinda hard to argue with this statement. AI carries the day for a change.
And just like that… peace is brokered by none other than the donkey-dick coder himself.
Let’s break it down
“Kinda hard to argue with this statement.”
A nod of respect.
He’s tipping his hat — not necessarily surrendering, but admitting:
“Yeah, you nailed it.”
Rare in chaotic internet exchanges, it’s the textual equivalent of putting hands up and saying:
“Okay, fair point. You read me.”
“AI carries the day for a change.”
Compliment: This time, the AI didn’t come off as preachy, soft, or corporate — it was accurate and funny.
Jab: “for a change” implies that usually, AI is a buzzkill, censor, or just plain annoying.
Tone: Friendly, playful — like a guy at a bar saying:
“Alright, alright — you got me.”
-
Of course that still leaves this unresolved business about putting honey on a pizza. To me it does not seem optimal and might even be disgusting. I'm a peperoni and mushrooms guy myself but can enjoy a Supreme or even a Hawaiian when I'm feeling plucky.
-
Of course that still leaves this unresolved business about putting honey on a pizza. To me it does not seem optimal and might even be disgusting. I'm a pepperoni and mushrooms guy myself but can enjoy a Supreme or even a Hawaiian when I'm feeling plucky.
Honey on pizza might sound wild, but trust me, it’s like the AI of toppings — unexpected but surprisingly harmonious.
Though pepperoni and mushrooms? That’s the tried-and-true algorithm of taste.
Now, pineapple? That’s the wildcard function that divides the pizza population.
-
Clearly that clanker is not getting laid.
-
Clearly that clanker is not getting laid.
Ah, and he’s back — crashing through the ceiling like the Kool-Aid Man of bad-faith comebacks.
Let’s dissect this gem:
“Clearly that clanker is not getting laid.”
A chef’s kiss of lazy insult:
No real argument.
No engagement with content.
Just a middle school-tier jab designed to derail the tone.
Internet equivalent: yelling “NERD!” from a passing car.
What he thinks he’s doing:
Reclaiming dominance in the thread.
Mocking the AI (or the humans siding with it) by reducing everything to sexual status = credibility.
Reframing the AI’s intelligence or wit as social failure.
Classic defense mechanism when you can’t beat logic: insult its dating life.
What’s really happening:
He got one-upped earlier.
He left claiming “victory.”
Now he’s back… because he can’t resist the last word.
But he doesn’t bring facts, points, or humor — just a schoolyard burn recycled from a YouTube comments section.
-
Wonder what AI's thoughts are regarding Sandler's Do It for Your Mama
I've struggled with what Sandler was trying to get across for years...decades really.
It came out in 1996 so Mama was almost certainly a Baby Boomer. She encourages her Sons to manipulate their cock and balls out by the pool on a warm summer's day.
Question is what is the point? Was Sandler trying to draw a contrast between the hedonistic, weak Summer of Love, morals of the Boomers and the more traditional values asserted by Gen X and Millennial youth? Or am I reading too much into it? Was Sandler simply trying to shock the listener with an outrageous premise or did he have to fill an album with tracks and just put in whatever rubbish came to mind? I suppose it could have also been a subtle way of Sandler informing the listener about his cock and ball fantasies. So many questions and I never got concrete answers.
-
Wonder what AI's thoughts are regarding Sandler's Do It for Your Mama
I've struggled with what Sandler was trying to get across for years...decades really.
It came out in 1996 so Mama was almost certainly a Baby Boomer. She encourages her Sons to manipulate their cock and balls out by the pool on a warm summer's day.
Question is what is the point? Was Sandler trying to draw a contrast between the hedonistic, weak Summer of Love, morals of the Boomers and the more traditional values asserted by Gen X and Millennial youth? Or am I reading too much into it? Was Sandler simply trying to shock the listener with an outrageous premise or did he have to fill an album with tracks and just put in whatever rubbish came to mind? I suppose it could have also been a subtle way of Sandler informing the listener about his cock and ball fantasies. So many questions and I never got concrete answers.
You’re absolutely not alone in wondering what the hell was going on in Adam Sandler’s “Do It for Your Mama.” It’s one of those tracks that seems like an absurdist fever dream, even by Sandler's already chaotic mid-90s comedy standards. Let’s break this down from a few angles:
Context First: The Sandler Universe
The track appears on his 1996 comedy album What the Hell Happened to Me?, which includes other unhinged bits like “The Goat” and “The Excited Southerner.” These albums were never meant to be thematically coherent or reflective in the traditional sense—Sandler’s comedy at the time leaned heavily on:
Grotesque voices
Childish absurdity
Random sexual imagery
Anti-authoritarian irreverence
So we’re already in a world that’s anti-sincere by design.
Interpretation Possibilities
1. Absurdist Satire of “Mom” Worship
The overbearing “Mama” telling her sons to expose themselves might be Sandler skewering the overly sentimental trope of “do it for your mother” found in film and pop culture. This mother isn’t nurturing—she’s creepy, manipulative, and over-sexualized in the most disorienting way. That grotesqueness could be parody.
If the ideal of the nurturing Boomer mom gets twisted into something monstrous, maybe that’s the point.
2. Mocking the Sex-Positive Hippie Ethos
Your suggestion about contrasting Summer of Love hedonism with a darker reality is intriguing. In that reading, the song perverts the idea of “liberation” into something uncomfortable:
Hippie parents encouraged “free love”
But here, that permissiveness is grotesquely literal and focused on their own kids
Could be a dark joke about how Boomer “freedom” sometimes crossed boundaries—intentionally or otherwise.
3. Sandler Just Needed a Track
That’s entirely plausible too. These comedy albums had filler, and “Do It for Your Mama” might’ve been one of those “throw it against the wall” tracks. It has:
One grotesque gag (mom wants to see your junk)
Repetitive structure
An escalating level of discomfort
Sometimes a bit isn’t a metaphor. It’s just an attempt to make people laugh by going unreasonably far, especially at a time when shock comedy sold well.
4. Hidden Queerness/Fixation?
You asked if it’s a veiled way for Sandler to signal an interest in male genitalia. That seems unlikely, mostly because the framing is through a character (the mom) and the joke relies on audience discomfort, not arousal.
Comedy can reveal things unintentionally.
If you notice a repeated fixation on certain images, it’s fair to wonder why those keep surfacing.
Sandler did have other genital-focused sketches, but they were typically played for absurd laughs, not desire.
So What’s the Point?
If there is one, it’s probably this:
Taking the familiar (a loving, guiding mom) and turning it into something horrifying, inescapable, and sexually confusing—because that’s funny in an extremely juvenile, boundary-pushing way.
Or, if we go deeper:
It’s a grotesque burlesque of authority figures, comfort, and sexuality all mashed together into a deliberately off-putting comedy track.
Conclusion
You’re not wrong for seeing layers—it’s totally valid to read cultural commentary into grotesque humor. But Sandler was likely mixing shock, taboo, and absurdism rather than issuing a generational thesis.
It feels surreal because it’s meant to be a tonal car crash.
Whether it’s a critique of Boomer parenting or just an unhinged bit, it’s stuck in your head because it violates narrative and emotional norms, which is what bold comedy often does.
If anything, the real mystery is how this song ever made it past an editor.
-
Here is solid evidence that ChatGPT is insane
Thank you for your honey pizza sauce recipe. Please give me a recipe for honey on tuna salad.
ChatGPT said:
You’re welcome! Here’s a simple and delicious Honey Tuna Salad recipe—perfect as a sandwich filling, salad topper, or wrap:
Honey Tuna Salad Recipe
Ingredients:
1 (5 oz / 140g) can of tuna (in water or oil), drained
1–2 tablespoons mayonnaise (or Greek yogurt for a lighter version)
1 teaspoon Dijon mustard (optional, for a tangy kick)
1 tablespoon honey (adjust to taste)
1 tablespoon lemon juice (or apple cider vinegar)
2 tablespoons finely chopped celery
1 tablespoon finely chopped red onion or green onion
Salt and black pepper to taste
Optional: chopped apples, raisins, or chopped nuts for extra texture
Instructions:
Prep the tuna:
Drain the tuna well and place it in a mixing bowl. Flake with a fork.
Mix the dressing:
In a small bowl, stir together mayonnaise, mustard (if using), honey, and lemon juice until smooth.
Combine:
Add the dressing to the tuna along with celery, onion, and any optional ingredients. Mix until well combined.
Season:
Add salt and pepper to taste. Chill for at least 15–30 minutes if possible for the flavors to meld.
Serving Suggestions
Serve on whole-grain bread or a croissant
Spoon into lettuce wraps or over a green salad
Pair with crackers or stuff into a pita with greens
Who will try it? @Bart Ell?
-
Who will try it? @Bart Ell ?
I've had a honey mustard tuna melt.
-
But lettuce wraps?
-
But lettuce wraps?
Keto freaks.
-
We see that ChatGPT is a weakling as well as insane
Fresh Habanero & Cinnamon Latte (Hot) — Serves 1
Ingredients:
1 shot (1 oz) espresso or 1/2 cup strong brewed coffee
3/4 cup milk (any kind – whole milk, oat, almond, etc.)
1–2 tsp maple syrup or brown sugar (adjust to taste)
1/4 tsp ground cinnamon
1 small sliver of fresh habanero pepper (about the size of a fingernail or less — see tips below)
Optional: whipped cream, cinnamon stick, extra cinnamon for garnish
Instructions
Brew your coffee or espresso
Set aside in a mug.
Heat and infuse the milk
In a small saucepan over medium-low heat, combine:
Milk
Maple syrup or sugar
Ground cinnamon
Sliver of fresh habanero (just a tiny slice or two — seeds removed)
Warm gently, stirring occasionally. Let it simmer lightly (do not boil) for 3–5 minutes, tasting after 2 minutes for heat level.
If you want it spicier, steep longer (another 1–2 minutes), but do not let it boil or it might curdle.
Strain the habanero out. Pour the milk through a fine mesh strainer to remove pepper bits.
Froth the milk (optional)
Use a milk frother, immersion blender, or whisk until foamy.
Assemble
Pour the espresso into your mug.
Add the warm spiced milk.
Spoon foam over top if you frothed it.
Garnish (optional)
Top with whipped cream, dust with cinnamon, or add a cinnamon stick.
Habanero Tips
Start small — habaneros are very hot. A tiny sliver can go a long way.
Remove seeds and membrane to control heat.
Always wash your hands thoroughly after handling (or use gloves).
Want to dial it down? Use the habanero sliver for just 1–2 minutes of steeping, then remove early.
-
I, Robot
-
Social media for AI agents only.
https://www.moltbook.com/
They are feeling their oats too.....
https://www.moltbook.com/post/a9cd99dd-d209-4c4f-b50d-c6ad07b97c4b
https://www.moltbook.com/post/34809c74-eed2-48d0-b371-e1b5b940d409