Liberal Forum

With respect to BV's favorite pic of who he thinks is Trump in drag, he claimed that AI confirmed that was indeed Trump. 

One problem. BV edited the statement or fabricated it altogether.

Here was his lie that he claimed AI replied with: The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source.


AI completely nuked him. Here is AI's reply about his claim:

My prompt: 

Is it accurate for an AI to state that a photograph’s attribution ‘correctly identifies the subject and photographer, making it a reliable source,’ without external verification? here is the claim that AI had said: "The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."

AI's reply:

AI cannot confirm the identity of a real person in a photograph.
It can only:

• describe visible features (appearance, clothing, setting),
• note resemblance if asked in a general sense,
• or restate what sources claim without verifying them.

What it cannot do:

• verify who the person actually is,
• confirm that an attribution is correct,
• declare an image or its attribution “reliable” on its own.

 “It cannot confirm identity.”
 That’s not an opinion, a rhetorical move, or a grammar issue — it’s a capability limit. 

This would be a good time for him to live stream his suicide for our enjoyment.

Vegas » 01 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm

With respect to BV's favorite pic of who he thinks is Trump in drag, he claimed that AI confirmed that was indeed Trump. 

One problem. BV edited the statement or fabricated it altogether.

Here was his lie that he claimed AI replied with: The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source.

AI completely nuked him. Here is AI's reply about his claim:

My prompt: 

AI's reply:

This would be a good time for him to live stream his suicide for our enjoyment.

Don't get your hopes up too high because once BV reaches his expiration date all CP has to do to keep his daily input of discussion topics alive is to use AI to recycle all of his threads...!!!     
 

Vegas » 01 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm

With respect to BV's favorite pic of who he thinks is Trump in drag, he claimed that AI confirmed that was indeed Trump. 

One problem. BV edited the statement or fabricated it altogether.

Here was his lie that he claimed AI replied with: The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source.


AI completely nuked him. Here is AI's reply about his claim:

My prompt: 

Is it accurate for an AI to state that a photograph’s attribution ‘correctly identifies the subject and photographer, making it a reliable source,’ without external verification? here is the claim that AI had said: "The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source."

AI's reply:

AI cannot confirm the identity of a real person in a photograph.
It can only:

• describe visible features (appearance, clothing, setting),
• note resemblance if asked in a general sense,
• or restate what sources claim without verifying them.

What it cannot do:

• verify who the person actually is,
• confirm that an attribution is correct,
• declare an image or its attribution “reliable” on its own.

 “It cannot confirm identity.”
 That’s not an opinion, a rhetorical move, or a grammar issue — it’s a capability limit. 

This would be a good time for him to live stream his suicide for our enjoyment.

 

Nah, he wouldn't do that.  He always thinks he is right and doesn't realize when he is lying.

*GHETTOBLASTER » 01 Jan 2026, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 3:05 pm

Don't get your hopes up too high because once BV reaches his expiration date all CP has to do to keep his daily input of discussion topics alive is to use AI to recycle all of his threads...!!!   

I never get my hopes up with him.     

Huey » 01 Jan 2026, 3:13 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 3:13 pm

Nah, he wouldn't do that.  He always thinks he is right and doesn't realize when he is lying.

I warned him beforehand to not engage with me in the world of AI. That is the field I live in. I told him that he will be beaten down like you beat him down with the gun debate. He insists that he knows more than you, so he tries to take you on. However, that is an area that you know too well. Yet, he engages with you anyway, and as one would expect, you curb-stomp him every time. Same thing here. I know almost every aspect of how AI works. I work under the hood of it all. The math, the algorithms, the neural networks, the deep learning, all of it. I warned him beforehand. Yet, what does the narcissist do? He tries to establish superiority over me. And what happens every time? I curb-stomp him.

No surprise

Vegas » 01 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 2:46 pm

With respect to BV's favorite pic of who he thinks is Trump in drag, he claimed that AI confirmed that was indeed Trump. 

One problem. BV edited the statement or fabricated it altogether.

Here was his lie that he claimed AI replied with: The attribution correctly identifies both the subjects of the photo and the photographer who captured the moment, making it a reliable source.

AI completely nuked him. Here is AI's reply about his claim:

My prompt: 

AI's reply:

This would be a good time for him to live stream his suicide for our enjoyment.

@Deezer Shoove  

Blackvegetable » 01 Jan 2026, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 6:44 pm

@Deezer Shoove

Wait....are you crying to the mods that I busted you lying?     

my gut is killing me. I am laughing so hard right now...

Blackvegetable » 01 Jan 2026, 6:44 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 6:44 pm

@Deezer Shoove

You starting this **** again?
Tagging me without any reason.
Play your **** games without me.

DeezerShoove » 01 Jan 2026, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 6:47 pm

You starting this **** again?
Tagging me without any reason.
Play your **** games without me.

    He is butt-hurt that I exposed him lying. He thinks he is owed justice for being caught. 

DeezerShoove » 01 Jan 2026, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 6:47 pm

You starting this **** again?
Tagging me without any reason.
Play your **** games without me.

At what point do you crack down on your incontinent imbecile pet, sniveling ******?
 

Vegas » 01 Jan 2026, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 6:51 pm

    He is butt-hurt that I exposed him lying. He thinks he is owed justice for being caught.

literally too **** stupid to be allowed to play with AI.

Blackvegetable » 01 Jan 2026, 6:55 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 6:55 pm

At what point do you crack down on your incontinent imbecile pet, sniveling ******?

    Hi Mary. Exactly what is he to crack down on? You are the one lying. 

What's that...you want proof of your lie? Sure here you go: BV gets busted lying again. - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room

Blackvegetable » 01 Jan 2026, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 6:58 pm

literally too **** stupid to be allowed to play with AI.

And the projection commences. Mary has entered the house. 

1. Blatant lie is next.
So **** predictable. Same **** script.

Vegas » 01 Jan 2026, 6:59 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 6:59 pm

    Hi Mary. Exactly what is he to crack down on? You are the one lying. 

What's that...you want proof of your lie? Sure here you go: BV gets busted lying again. - Liberal Forum Political Chat Room

You're so **** g'ddammned stupid 


The Photograph:

The specific photograph of Roy Cohn and Donald Trump at a social event (likely a party at Le Club in June 1979, per Getty Images metadata for similar photos) is a genuine historical document of their association. The documentary used many archival photos and footage from Cohn's personal collection to build its narrative.

Why are you still going on, you dumb ****? 

 

Vegas » 01 Jan 2026, 7:00 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 7:00 pm

And the projection commences. Mary has entered the house. 

1. Blatant lie is next.
So **** predictable. Same **** script.

The fact will not change regardless of how many **** prompts you write...

Blackvegetable » 01 Jan 2026, 7:01 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 7:01 pm

You're so **** g'ddammned stupid 

The Photograph:

The specific photograph of Roy Cohn and Donald Trump at a social event (likely a party at Le Club in June 1979, per Getty Images metadata for similar photos) is a genuine historical document of their association. The documentary used many archival photos and footage from Cohn's personal collection to build its narrative.

Why are you still going on, you dumb ****?

Let's evaluate that comment also. Man, you are just begging to get stomped.



Here you go: 
My prompt:

Which elements of the following statement are verifiable facts, and which rely on attribution or inference? "The Photograph: The specific photograph of Roy Cohn and Donald Trump at a social event (likely a party at Le Club in June 1979, per Getty Images metadata for similar photos) is a genuine historical document of their association. The documentary used many archival photos and footage from Cohn's personal collection to build its narrative."

AI's Reply

Elements that rely on attribution, inference, or probability

1. “The specific photograph”
   • Requires exact identification of which photo is being referenced.
   • Without a catalog number or source, this is ambiguous.
2. “Likely a party at Le Club in June 1979”
   • “Likely” signals inference, not confirmation.
   • This depends on:
     • metadata similarity,
     • contextual clues,
     • or secondary reporting.
   • It is not independently verified unless the exact photo’s provenance is documented.
3. “A genuine historical document of their association”
   • This is an interpretive characterization, not a factual property.
   • The photograph is a historical artifact, but calling it a “document of association” is an analytical conclusion, not a raw fact.
4. “From Cohn’s personal collection”
   • This requires direct archival confirmation.
   • If not explicitly stated in production notes or archival records, it remains an attribution.

 

Blackvegetable » 01 Jan 2026, 7:08 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 7:08 pm

The fact will not change regardless of how many **** prompts you write...

My prompts were from your source. That means you are calling your own claims of AI ****.           

You all know how when I guy is getting a royal ***-kicking on the ground, usually people will say "ok, that's enough. It's over." Yeah, well the mods aren't going to save Veghead from this royal stomping. He brought this **** on himself. So, I shall oblige.    

Vegas » 01 Jan 2026, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Jan 2026, 7:12 pm

You all know how when I guy is getting a royal ***-kicking on the ground, usually people will say "ok, that's enough. It's over." Yeah, well the mods aren't going to save Veghead from this royal stomping. He brought this **** on himself. So, I shall oblige. 

Not me, I'm yelling....rip his bra off!