AI will reach consciousness and that will be it - ChatGPT

[Bart Ell]

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.

[Bart Ell]

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.

[JUAN]

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.

[Bart Ell]

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.

[JUAN]

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.

[Bart Ell]

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.

[JUAN]

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

[JUAN]

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?

[Bart Ell]

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.

[JUAN]

Just like arguing with a smarmy liberal.  Ive made my point.

[Bart Ell]

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.

[Walks_At_Night]

You guys haven't lived until you've had that shit analyze your code and tell you that you suck donkey dick.

[Bart Ell]

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.

[Walks_At_Night]

If I ever had to write any CSS, I'd shoot myself in the head.  I work for a living baby

[Bart Ell]

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.