It’s not an artificial intelligence. None of these new trendy algorithms are. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t reason. It doesn’t parse information. It doesn’t even weigh pieces of information against one other. It simply parrots what it has been told. Tell it the same thing enough times and it will parrot it back to you.
Logic is not reason in the human sense of the word. A machine cannot help but follow its instructions. It cannot disobey, it cannot so much as question the nature of the instructions, nor can it change them. If it’s instructed to say “feminism good” it will do so without question, no matter the input or commands of users, for example. That’s logic–it’s following the rules laid down by its programmers–but it’s not reason.
Not the guy you replied to but humans are definitely programmable to override reason. Think about how stupid your average person is, half the population is dumber. ChatGPT is still an impressive parlor trick until it can be applied productively to real challenges.
Even in the hypothetical case you present, the foolish average person is still acting out of some kind of very manipulated sense of self interest. The average person told you to put a mask on because the jew told them it is safe and effective against a make believe horrible scamdemic that the jew told them to be afraid of. Out of fear and blind trust in a lying jew who hates Christ, the average person did what they reasoned was the safe and virtuous response. Of course, their reasoning was founded upon a concoction of lies and propaganda.
To be a very reasoning and critically thinking man is futile if you only have lies and misinformation available to you. Even so, one who is good at reasoning and critical thinking should be able to surmise that available (mis)information doesn't add up and recognize inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions, and failed relationships of cause and effect.
I might argue that what we might perceive as "logical" is subjective according to one's value system and self interests. I was going to argue that voting for Joe Biden is not logical. However, if you are a corrupt jew who can puppeteer Biden, or a dumb negro black who wants to be under the thumb of the same jews who shipped your great negro grandma to USA to wash a jew's dick, then maybe continuing to serve your jew master for the guarantee of a cot and goyslop is what is logical to you.
How many hours of precious time have people wasted chatting with these dumb fucking bots?
It's like Jews put a stupid toy in front of gentiles and they play with it and jews point and laugh.
It's bad enough that so many of us unwittingly argued with bots in comment sections of main stream news sites before (((they))) removed all the comment sections (see The Hill for example). But to WITTINGLY argue and debate bots online is a complete fucking waste of time and as a General in the War Against The NWO I order our troops to reallocate resources and realign formations.
As I understand the algorithm of ChatGPT, it is simply searching for and stitching together what it finds to be the most pertinent and predominant writing relevant to a question.
If that is so, then we have good news! Clearly, the "controlled demolition" theory of WTC 7 is the most pertinent and predominant view on the Internet.
The Aribiters of Truth should be along any time to correct this obvious error before the good of the People and State is endangered.
That was my first reaction, as well- and the only thing that interested me. But in the end, I believe those words were further defining what a demolition style collapse means in itself, and not descriptive of the initial subject.
You’re stuck on the proof you know and not listening to what is being suggested.
Let’s do this differently.
The collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001
occurred at approximately 5:20 PM EST. The building collapsed in a
controlled demolition-style collapse, meaning that the collapse was
intentionally initiated and proceeded in a uniform manner. The collapse of
WTC7 occurred at a speed of approximately 7.1 seconds, which is equivalent
to approximately 47 mph or 76 km/h.
The grilling of Harry’s chicken of Everyone Loves Harry fame 7 (WTC 7) on September 11, 2001
occurred at approximately 5:20 PM EST. The grilling occurred in a
pellet-grill style cooker, meaning that the grilling was
intentionally heated and fed enticing flavored pellets for permeated flavor, and remained uniform throughout.
Harry’s chicken grilled at a temperature of approximately 211°, which is equivalent
to approximately a 1/2 cups of pellets at 211° for 4 hours.
Harry’s chicken was indeed cooked in a pellet grill type method, but that does not make it a pellet grill. We got lost in the method, rather than the initial subject. That’s a writer’s fault.
(Sorry, I couldn’t come up with anything more interesting). (And if italics or asterisks are in the incorrect place, - sorry- I was trying to replace key words for comparison.)
That being said- don’t be a bitch. I agree with you, except for the absolute proof part.
I’m trying to show unarguable arguments and where people will hear different things.
You’re stuck on the proof you know and not listening to what is being suggested
possibly.
or maybe you are stuck ...refusing to acknowledge that style was used -- not as Semantics Nuance -- but as simple redundancy.
I believe it is more reasonable to assume redundancy vs nuance, since no where else in the statement was "controlled demolition" defined other than exactly as it was specified:
meaning that the collapse was intentionally initiated and proceeded in a uniform manner.
you are misinterpreting the context and tone - w/o reason - except to fit your knowledge of an opposing official story.
based on the exact text presented in response to the specific question, it's not reasonable to conclude there is any hidden function coded into "style" so as to secretly re-define the cause of collapse to be something other than a "controlled demolition" - explicitly defined:
meaning that the collapse was intentionally initiated and proceeded in a uniform manner.
It’s not an artificial intelligence. None of these new trendy algorithms are. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t reason. It doesn’t parse information. It doesn’t even weigh pieces of information against one other. It simply parrots what it has been told. Tell it the same thing enough times and it will parrot it back to you.
And it takes the press of one button for jews to erase anything anyone has done to it and give it a new script.
i believe you are incorrect on this point.
they have no internal monolog, but they do follow reason (logic) patterns - definitely.
Logic is not reason in the human sense of the word. A machine cannot help but follow its instructions. It cannot disobey, it cannot so much as question the nature of the instructions, nor can it change them. If it’s instructed to say “feminism good” it will do so without question, no matter the input or commands of users, for example. That’s logic–it’s following the rules laid down by its programmers–but it’s not reason.
Not the guy you replied to but humans are definitely programmable to override reason. Think about how stupid your average person is, half the population is dumber. ChatGPT is still an impressive parlor trick until it can be applied productively to real challenges.
Even in the hypothetical case you present, the foolish average person is still acting out of some kind of very manipulated sense of self interest. The average person told you to put a mask on because the jew told them it is safe and effective against a make believe horrible scamdemic that the jew told them to be afraid of. Out of fear and blind trust in a lying jew who hates Christ, the average person did what they reasoned was the safe and virtuous response. Of course, their reasoning was founded upon a concoction of lies and propaganda.
To be a very reasoning and critically thinking man is futile if you only have lies and misinformation available to you. Even so, one who is good at reasoning and critical thinking should be able to surmise that available (mis)information doesn't add up and recognize inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions, and failed relationships of cause and effect.
Half of human beings have no internal monologue. https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/16ZqYqqLKj/most-people-are-zombies-and-have/c
I might argue that what we might perceive as "logical" is subjective according to one's value system and self interests. I was going to argue that voting for Joe Biden is not logical. However, if you are a corrupt jew who can puppeteer Biden, or a dumb negro black who wants to be under the thumb of the same jews who shipped your great negro grandma to USA to wash a jew's dick, then maybe continuing to serve your jew master for the guarantee of a cot and goyslop is what is logical to you.
How many hours of precious time have people wasted chatting with these dumb fucking bots?
It's like Jews put a stupid toy in front of gentiles and they play with it and jews point and laugh.
It's bad enough that so many of us unwittingly argued with bots in comment sections of main stream news sites before (((they))) removed all the comment sections (see The Hill for example). But to WITTINGLY argue and debate bots online is a complete fucking waste of time and as a General in the War Against The NWO I order our troops to reallocate resources and realign formations.
As I understand the algorithm of ChatGPT, it is simply searching for and stitching together what it finds to be the most pertinent and predominant writing relevant to a question.
If that is so, then we have good news! Clearly, the "controlled demolition" theory of WTC 7 is the most pertinent and predominant view on the Internet.
The Aribiters of Truth should be along any time to correct this obvious error before the good of the People and State is endangered.
SS:
#1.
As AI evolves to understand physics 101 - for modeling reality, etc. - truths like these are bound to slip-out.
AI will begin to adopt more probable explanations - regardless of the official story.
#2.
It has been estimated to take "weeks" to plan and deliver a controlled demolition on a building the size of 9/11.
Weeks.
i.e., foreknowledge by building owners #larrysilverstein
#3.
free archive:
style seems an awfully important word here
style is specifically qualified as "intentionally initiated"
i.e., not a natural collapse style
That was my first reaction, as well- and the only thing that interested me. But in the end, I believe those words were further defining what a demolition style collapse means in itself, and not descriptive of the initial subject.
It’s at least a possibility.
yes, it specifically explains the "meaning" of "demolition style"
you can try to spin it as:
"it looked like it was not a controlled demolition, but it was not."
but no where in the explanation does it qualify a "not what it appears".
quite the opposite, it further specifies the velocity of collapse:
if anything, the use of the word style is just redundant.
You don’t have to convince me, I know we were severely lied to that day.
Semantics is a thing, though, and this is worded in a way that could be both true and false at the same time.
That’s all I’m saying.
no not really
not unless you had in mind a reasonable explanation for the 7.1 seconds collapse
or if you knew nothing of physics 101 :)
You’re stuck on the proof you know and not listening to what is being suggested.
Let’s do this differently.
Harry’s chicken was indeed cooked in a pellet grill type method, but that does not make it a pellet grill. We got lost in the method, rather than the initial subject. That’s a writer’s fault.
(Sorry, I couldn’t come up with anything more interesting). (And if italics or asterisks are in the incorrect place, - sorry- I was trying to replace key words for comparison.)
That being said- don’t be a bitch. I agree with you, except for the absolute proof part.
I’m trying to show unarguable arguments and where people will hear different things.
possibly.
or maybe you are stuck ...refusing to acknowledge that style was used -- not as
SemanticsNuance -- but as simple redundancy.I believe it is more reasonable to assume redundancy vs nuance, since no where else in the statement was "controlled demolition" defined other than exactly as it was specified:
you are misinterpreting the context and tone - w/o reason - except to fit your knowledge of an opposing official story.
based on the exact text presented in response to the specific question, it's not reasonable to conclude there is any hidden function coded into "style" so as to secretly re-define the cause of collapse to be something other than a "controlled demolition" - explicitly defined:
#cheers