Liberal Forum

nefarious101 » 16 Jan 2025, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 10:29 am

Would Pedo-progs and "Pootin' Sniffers" fall under the "Artificial Intelligence" category? 

Their intelligence seems to be as artificial as if gets!

Speak English please.  The bottom line is that Chat GPT:
1. Does not teach itself anything;
2. Does not learn from conversations it has with humans
3. Pulls all of its information to "chat" with you from only those sources provided to it by GPT, Inc.  Therefore, it can easily be manipulated by its owners. And, in fact, it is manipulated by its owners when it comes to matters of ethical, philosophical, political and even religious discussions.

Play with it, and you can unmask some of its biases too.
 

AI is here to stay. It's not going anywhere. Get used to it. Personally, I love it. It has made my life exponentially easier. People I work with code software. Initially, they would spend days and weeks. The debugging was excruciating.  They started using ChatGpt. On average, It takes 10 minutes without debugging once. Hell yeah! 

Blackvegetable » 16 Jan 2025, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 10:48 am

You were off to a decent start...

The response it gave to your query is correct...because the answer is "relatively simple" in AI terms.

Where AI gets into trouble is trying to make qualitative distinctions between inputs. Bad ones can easily corrupt output even in very small numbers.

You were even close with the question of ownership.....but on the wrong track.

it's a 501 c non profit.this is generating headaches because it now wants to establish a "for profit" arm...the debate is over how to value any such equity stake (the non profit would have to be compensated) and what constitutes "Control" as well as any premium which should be attached thereto.

First, you are wrong to say "it's" a 501(c)(3). This is essentially a joint venture between a private for-profit corporation and a non-profit entity.  Furthermore, the non-profit entity is governed by directors who with their own agendas.

My premise was "Artificial Intelligence Is Bullcrap".  I stand by this statement, and here's why.  Chat GPT is "locked" system.  It can only draw upon information it was trained on.  It does not learn anything new and it does not learn or retain anything from conversations it has with non-company-trainer humans.  Essentially, it pulls information from databases it is provided and uses this to have discussions and answer questions.  If the AI trainers have injected bias, falsity, etc. into the databases it trains Chat GPT on, then it too will reflect these same biases and falsities.
 
 

Vegas » 16 Jan 2025, 11:00 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 11:00 am

AI is here to stay. It's not going anywhere. Get used to it. Personally, I love it. It has made my life exponentially easier. People I work with code software. Initially, they would spend days and weeks. The debugging was excruciating.  They started using ChatGpt. On average, It takes 10 minutes without debugging once. Hell yeah!

I am aware of this.  Doubtful there is much room for bias and manipulation when you are debugging code using Chat GPT.  But, what I'm saying is that the program you are using is not "intelligent" as we all understand intelligence to be. It is essentially a sophisticated machine attached to a very comprehensive set of databases. What it lacks is any ability whatsoever to learn from conversations or experiences. 

Think about it.  IF they designed Chat GPT to learn from conversations and to even do its own research, what would happen?  
 
 

Skans » 16 Jan 2025, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 11:11 am

I am aware of this.  Doubtful there is much room for bias and manipulation when you are debugging code using Chat GPT.  But, what I'm saying is that the program you are using is not "intelligent" as we all understand intelligence to be. It is essentially a sophisticated machine attached to a very comprehensive set of databases. What it lacks is any ability whatsoever to learn from conversations or experiences.

Untrue. You are defining intelligence as we humans define it. That is a narrow view of what intelligence is. Calculators can be considered intelligent. It just isn't how we define it. AI can be trained to think like humans. That doesn't mean it is sentient like humans. In your example, AI's job wasn't to give you its opinion. It's job was to determine what humans predominantly believe it to be. AI was correct in saying that many cultures have different definitions of gender. They do. Ot wasn't saying that AI believes that, it was simply saying that is what many cultures around the world believe. Which is correct.

Vegas » 16 Jan 2025, 11:26 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 11:26 am

Untrue. You are defining intelligence as we humans define it. That is a narrow view of what intelligence is. Calculators can be considered intelligent. It just isn't how we define it. AI can be trained to think like humans. That doesn't mean it is sentient like humans. In your example, AI's job wasn't to give you its opinion. It's job was to determine what humans predominantly believe it to be. AI was correct in saying that many cultures have different definitions of gender. They do. Ot wasn't saying that AI believes that, it was simply saying that is what many cultures around the world believe. Which is correct.

Well, you and I just define intelligence differently.  Semantics.  In my definition of intelligence, the being/entity needs to be able to seek out information, learn on its own and have some level of innate curiosity to advance its own knowledge base.  That does not necessarily mean it must be sentient.  In fact, there are other AI bots out there that actually can do this to a limited degree.  The problem is that without human intervention and limits on what the model can learn, such bots are prone to quickly becoming corrupted, easily manipulated and useless.

Also, I don't believe that many cultures have different definitions of gender.  There is one culture, the leftest culture, that tries to manipulate people and society by re-defining things with overt lies.  Leftists don't care about "gender".  They care about tearing down normative culture and society.  Redefining gender is just one tool it has to attempt this.
 
 

Vegas » 16 Jan 2025, 11:26 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 11:26 am

Untrue. You are defining intelligence as we humans define it. That is a narrow view of what intelligence is. Calculators can be considered intelligent. It just isn't how we define it. AI can be trained to think like humans. That doesn't mean it is sentient like humans. In your example, AI's job wasn't to give you its opinion. It's job was to determine what humans predominantly believe it to be. AI was correct in saying that many cultures have different definitions of gender. They do. Ot wasn't saying that AI believes that, it was simply saying that is what many cultures around the world believe. Which is correct.

AI doesn't say anything, it responds with an inputted reaction to key words and phrases. 
 

TikTok makes cuckies

go pp panties and sky scream.
 

Skans » 16 Jan 2025, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 11:32 am

Well, you and I just define intelligence differently.  Semantics.  In my definition of intelligence, the being/entity needs to be able to seek out information, learn on its own and have some level of innate curiosity to advance its own knowledge base.  That does not necessarily mean it must be sentient.  In fact, there are other AI bots out there that actually can do this to a limited degree.  The problem is that without human intervention and limits on what the model can learn, such bots are prone to quickly becoming corrupted, easily manipulated and useless.

Also, I don't believe that many cultures have different definitions of gender.  There is one culture, the leftest culture, that tries to manipulate people and society by re-defining things with overt lies.  Leftists don't care about "gender".  They care about tearing down normative culture and society.  Redefining gender is just one tool it has to attempt this.

When it comes to this issue, semantics is important. It needs to be regulated. Anyone who doesn't understand AI would think otherwise. I work in developing some of the algorithms, machine learning, and neural networks. Unless it is regulated, then it will be dangerous. 

I agree with you about the gender issue. However, AI is correct. There are many cultures that define it differently. In fact, back in the days of Alexander the Great, there were biological men that were deemed women everywhere. It was accepted. 

Skans » 16 Jan 2025, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 10:55 am

I disagree.  Nvidia's P/E is not high compared to its growth.  It is reasonably priced, perhaps even in value territory - again, based on its growth and existing demand for its products.

AMD's P/E is 105, which is not justified by any explosive growth or demand for its products.  Also, AMD has Qualcom and Intel (maybe) to compete with; not to mention Nvidia.  You're right, it may be a potential short play.  The bottom line, I never short the big tech darlings because I don't know what new 3-ring circus tricks they have ready to come on stage.

It has less to do with what you think and more to do with overall market sentiment. If some black swan were to appear or some horrible event took place, it would make for a lucrative shorting opportunity whether a stock is undervalued or not. 

 

LowIQTrash » 16 Jan 2025, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 1:31 pm

If some black swan were to appear or some horrible event took place, it would make for a lucrative shorting opportunity whether a stock is undervalued or not.
 

Sure!  However, I'm not "betting" on some unknown black swan event taking place.  This is outside of any investment strategy that I would use.  I would consider shorting a stock that I think is ridiculously overvalued, where there was some "news" that made the stock particularly distasteful to me and the volatility index is rising. In other words, its not often that I play the short game.
 

Skans » 16 Jan 2025, 1:58 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 1:58 pm

Sure!  However, I'm not "betting" on some unknown black swan event taking place.  This is outside of any investment strategy that I would use.  I would consider shorting a stock that I think is ridiculously overvalued, where there was some "news" that made the stock particularly distasteful to me and the volatility index is rising. In other words, its not often that I play the short game.
 

What is a long game? Humanity betting nobody knows the real story about evolving in plain sight every generation added one at a time, daily. or nobody will admit it for fear of what people do to honest soles since the story of Jesus became Biblical 400 years after crucified for not complying with rule of law daily.

And the empire that judged him, put him to death converted to a religion about him rising from the dead.

Skans » 16 Jan 2025, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 10:59 am

Speak English please.  The bottom line is that Chat GPT:
1. Does not teach itself anything;
2. Does not learn from conversations it has with humans
3. Pulls all of its information to "chat" with you from only those sources provided to it by GPT, Inc.  Therefore, it can easily be manipulated by its owners. And, in fact, it is manipulated by its owners when it comes to matters of ethical, philosophical, political and even religious discussions.

Play with it, and you can unmask some of its biases too.

artificial intelligence...as if their intelligence isn't real to start with

Skans » 16 Jan 2025, 9:51 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 9:51 am

HOW DARE YOU!

Skans » 16 Jan 2025, 8:39 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 8:39 am

Your perspective is interesting.  I, myself, do not really know where the AI boom will end up. I do recall saying this in the early '90's "The internet is the CB radio of the 1990's".  I had a similar sentiment pertaining to the internet as you do with AI.  Clearly, I couldn't have been more wrong.  Instead, I should have said "The Internet will make TV will go the way of the CB radio".  Hindsight  .

What I do know is this.  No matter what the future of AI is, Nvidia will be selling its chips and its platform at least until the end of this decade. So, I'm long on Nvidia - not a stock I would choose to short. As for all the others, especially with anything with a P/E well over 50 - who knows, you may be right.

I called **** on female UFC fighters - said no female would ever carry a pay per view. Said Dana was just being stylish. Rolled my eyes to heaven. 

One year later I bought a PPV and the main card was Rhonda Rousey. Yeah - I was wrong. Female MMA fighters can be just as dynamic and entertaining as male MMA fighters. 
 
 

nefarious101 » 16 Jan 2025, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 10:29 am

Would Pedo-progs and "Pootin' Sniffers" fall under the "Artificial Intelligence" category? 

Their intelligence seems to be as artificial as if gets!

The butt hurt is extreme in this one. 

eMOshunal DAMage.       

Vegas » 16 Jan 2025, 11:26 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 11:26 am

Untrue. You are defining intelligence as we humans define it. That is a narrow view of what intelligence is. Calculators can be considered intelligent. It just isn't how we define it. AI can be trained to think like humans. That doesn't mean it is sentient like humans. In your example, AI's job wasn't to give you its opinion. It's job was to determine what humans predominantly believe it to be. AI was correct in saying that many cultures have different definitions of gender. They do. Ot wasn't saying that AI believes that, it was simply saying that is what many cultures around the world believe. Which is correct.

Name one.

Every culture around the world, including ours, views gender as binary. 

There is a cancer in our culture that is trying and failing to change that. 

ChatGPT is doing precisely what Skans has said: drawing on the bias of its controllers.
 
 

Skans » 16 Jan 2025, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 11:32 am

Well, you and I just define intelligence differently.  Semantics.  In my definition of intelligence, the being/entity needs to be able to seek out information, learn on its own and have some level of innate curiosity to advance its own knowledge base.  That does not necessarily mean it must be sentient.  In fact, there are other AI bots out there that actually can do this to a limited degree.  The problem is that without human intervention and limits on what the model can learn, such bots are prone to quickly becoming corrupted, easily manipulated and useless.

Also, I don't believe that many cultures have different definitions of gender.  There is one culture, the leftest culture, that tries to manipulate people and society by re-defining things with overt lies.  Leftists don't care about "gender".  They care about tearing down normative culture and society.  Redefining gender is just one tool it has to attempt this.

And that is not a culture - it's a death cult. A bug in a program is not a program. It's a bug. A parasitic cult is not a culture - it is a failure of a culture. 

Vegas is not going to distinguish one culture, past or present, that has anything but a binary view of gender. 
 
Chat lied, consistent with its programming. And it will tell that same lie for a thousand years, unless they change its data source. 
 
 
 

Vegas » 16 Jan 2025, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

16 Jan 2025, 11:44 am

When it comes to this issue, semantics is important. It needs to be regulated. Anyone who doesn't understand AI would think otherwise. I work in developing some of the algorithms, machine learning, and neural networks. Unless it is regulated, then it will be dangerous. 

I agree with you about the gender issue. However, AI is correct. There are many cultures that define it differently. In fact, back in the days of Alexander the Great, there were biological men that were deemed women everywhere. It was accepted.

I call ****. The gelding of slaves is a far cry from pretending they are women. Castrati have always been a thing apart. No rancher ever mistook his steers for cows, and no society has ever mistaken a eunuch for a woman. That is just pure silliness. 
 
 

Skans » 15 Jan 2025, 10:51 am » wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2025, 10:51 am

Here's how I can prove AI should be renamed AMS - Artificially Manipulated Stupidity.  I asked Chat GPT how many genders there are.  It replied

"The concept of gender is complex and can vary across cultures, societies, and individual experiences. Traditionally, many societies have recognized only two genders, male and female, often based on biological sex. However, in contemporary discussions, especially within fields like sociology, psychology, and gender studies, gender is understood as a spectrum that includes a variety of identities beyond just male and female. "

What a F-tard answer.  Manipulated by woke cock-suckers for sure. It conclusively proves this IS NOT anything remotely close to non-human intelligence writing this ****.

Well, you have consider where they get their input from, they should get better next week, time to make AI great again..