Liberal Forum

Why do narcissists, like BV aka Dartn Evader, aka Askholio, aka disgusting excuse for a human being, consistently misunderstand AI?

  My theory. Unlike Veghead, I will provide thoughts of my own. No copy/pasting from the internet.

: AI requires three traits narcissism actively neglects...because they are pitiful scum.

1. Listening
   AI improves by ingesting feedback. Narcissists interpret feedback as an insult, a conspiracy, or proof that everyone else is stupid. This sounds familiar to anyone who has even engaged BV in anything. 
2. Error correction
   AI gets better by being wrong publicly and updating. Narcissists get better by never being wrong, ever, even retroactively. As you all know, I receive much joy in embarrassing BV publicly...like now.
3. Epistemic humility
   AI works because it knows it doesn’t “know”,  it models uncertainty. Narcissists already know everything, especially things they learned 12 minutes ago on YouTube.

This leads to a predictable outcome:

• The morons think AI agrees with them.
• The morons think prompting is domination, not collaboration
• The morons believe disagreement means bias, not probability or even certainty. 
• And the morons explain AI with supreme confidence while being wrong at a statistically impressive level.

In short:
AI is iterative. Narcissism is declarative.
AI learns. Narcissists proclaim.
AI updates. Narcissists double down. But I’m open to counterarguments, preferably ones that don’t begin with “Actually…” and end with total certainty.


 
@Blackvegetable  You're up. Remember, your thoughts along with copy/pasted ****. Otherwise, you fail again. 

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:26 pm

Why do narcissists, like BV aka Dartn Evader, aka Askholio, aka disgusting excuse for a human being, consistently misunderstand AI?

  My theory. Unlike Veghead, I will provide thoughts of my own. No copy/pasting from the internet.

: AI requires three traits narcissism actively neglects...because they are pitiful scum.

1. Listening
   AI improves by ingesting feedback. Narcissists interpret feedback as an insult, a conspiracy, or proof that everyone else is stupid. This sounds familiar to anyone who has even engaged BV in anything. 
2. Error correction
   AI gets better by being wrong publicly and updating. Narcissists get better by never being wrong, ever, even retroactively. As you all know, I receive much joy in embarrassing BV publicly...like now.
3. Epistemic humility
   AI works because it knows it doesn’t “know”,  it models uncertainty. Narcissists already know everything, especially things they learned 12 minutes ago on YouTube.

This leads to a predictable outcome:

• The morons think AI agrees with them.
• The morons think prompting is domination, not collaboration
• The morons believe disagreement means bias, not probability or even certainty. 
• And the morons explain AI with supreme confidence while being wrong at a statistically impressive level.

In short:
AI is iterative. Narcissism is declarative.
AI learns. Narcissists proclaim.
AI updates. Narcissists double down. But I’m open to counterarguments, preferably ones that don’t begin with “Actually…” and end with total certainty.

@Blackvegetable  You're up. Remember, your thoughts along with copy/pasted ****. Otherwise, you fail again.

Evaluate (Level 5): While the author judges the subject ("pitiful scum"), the Bloom's definition of Evaluate requires judging based on objective criteria and standards. The heavy use of Ad Hominem fallacies and personal bias prevents this from reaching the high-level objectivity required for Level 5.

 Create (Level 6): While the theory is original, the response functions more as an analytical critique than the creation of a new, functional product or holistic work.


This crap is beneath me.

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 12:31 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:31 pm

Evaluate (Level 5): While the author judges the subject ("pitiful scum"), the Bloom's definition of Evaluate requires judging based on objective criteria and standards. The heavy use of Ad Hominem fallacies and personal bias prevents this from reaching the high-level objectivity required for Level 5.

 Create (Level 6): While the theory is original, the response functions more as an analytical critique than the creation of a new, functional product or holistic work.

This crap is beneath me.

This is your rebuttal?  You already lose. 

That was quick. 


@Huey  well, he already forfeited and he didn't even try.       

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:33 pm

This is your rebuttal?  You already lose. 

That was quick. 

@Huey  well, he already forfeited and he didn't even try.     

Your crap is beneath me...

I'm not surprised you refuse to read it.
 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:35 pm

Your crap is beneath me...

I'm not surprised you refuse to read it.

     

Translation: You know that you don't have a shot against me, so a cop-out is the best you can do. 

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 12:37 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:37 pm

     

Translation: 

Never presume, Boat Person. I'm native.

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 12:44 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:44 pm

Never presume, Boat Person. I'm native.

No presumption. You copped out, as always. 

Was it the 'you need to provide thoughts of your own part'?

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:48 pm

No presumption. You copped out, as always. 

Was it the 'you need to provide thoughts of your own part'?

I'm HOTS

You're LOTS



 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 12:50 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:50 pm

I'm HOTS

You're LOTS

   

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:33 pm

This is your rebuttal?  You already lose. 

That was quick. 

@Huey  well, he already forfeited and he didn't even try.     

Yeah, he decided to go straight to his gun loss on the other thread.

Huey » 30 Jan 2026, 12:53 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:53 pm

Yeah, he decided to go straight to his gun loss on the other thread.

Shouldn't you be crawling about collecting your limbs?

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:54 pm

Shouldn't you be crawling about collecting your limbs?

Not at all.  Everything I posted is supported by fact.  Verifiable fact as the link you posted, the one I gave you, as well as the other one you requested.

Game.  Set.. Match.

Huey » 30 Jan 2026, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:56 pm

Not at all.  Everything I posted is supported by fact.  Verifiable fact as the link you posted, the one I gave you, as well as the other one you requested.

Game.  Set.. Match.

This is Fact..

This article describes the many variations of the Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle family of weapons produced by Colt's Manufacturing Company. Weapons patterned on the original ArmaLite AR-15 design


 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 12:58 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 12:58 pm

This is Fact..

This article describes the many variations of the Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle family of weapons produced by Colt's Manufacturing Company. Weapons patterned on the original ArmaLite AR-15 design

Another copy/paste. No thoughts of your own. 

You are SGDFS

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 1:01 pm

Another copy/paste. No thoughts of your own. 

You are SGDFS

****.

It is supporting evidence of an argument I made prior to looking for it.

Something you couldn't possibly understand. 
 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 1:04 pm

****.

It is supporting evidence of an argument I made prior to looking for it.

Something you couldn't possibly understand.

Where are your thoughts? I see you using someone else's thoughts. 

1. Continue to copy and make excuses.

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 1:06 pm

Where are your thoughts? I see you using someone else's thoughts. 

1. Continue to copy and make excuses.

No...I'm using evidence which supports my thought.

It's what's called an Argument.

Never to be confused with Tantrum.

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 1:07 pm

No...I'm using evidence which supports my thought.


 

What thoughts are you supporting? 

1. Once again, no thoughts. 

Vegas » 30 Jan 2026, 1:09 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 1:09 pm

What thoughts are you supporting? 

1. Once again, no thoughts.

That the AR-15 is a weapon designed for combat.

Duh.
 

Blackvegetable » 30 Jan 2026, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Jan 2026, 1:11 pm

That the AR-15 is a weapon designed for combat.

Duh.

And did you make that claim on your own, then backed it up with your source? 

If so, post it. Post your original claim. 

1. Same ****