Try prompting it anything about the Holohoax and see if that's how it works. Don't you think they deliberately program how it responds to this stuff? It rolls by the IDF rulebook throwing labels like "Holocaust revisionist/deniers". I certainly didn't lead it that way.
There is no such a thing like truth generating machine. It's obviously an LLM algorithm trained on datasets. By "admit" I meant it had to acknowledge the contradiction between the official figures. It's figurative speech, dude.
You're, like others here, miss the forest for the tree. ChatGPT is not important here, it's just a way to showcase the contradiction in the figures given by the Holocaust narrative. It functions a bit like an NPC in a platonic dialogue of you will.
Dude, either read what the post is about or pass. It's about Claims Conference specifically - it doesn't matter what other organizations count as "holocaust survivors". If you had red the chat, you'd see that ChatGPT made a similar argument which I refuted:
The definition is pretty strict actually. For compensation purposes, the Claims Conference defines survivors as Jews who lived in Nazi-occupied countries, ghettos, camps, or hiding for at least a specified period (e.g., 18 months in hiding or 6 months in a camp/ghetto). This excludes some refugees who fled early.
Demographic Estimates: The ~200,000–220,000 survivors alive in 2025 (per the Claims Conference) are based on registered claimants and projections, but unregistered survivors (e.g., those who never sought compensation) may increase the total slightly.
So the 200k figure comes out of the Claims Conference and it only include jews who lived in Nazi-occupied countries. Nice try though.
What's the point in such irrelevant comments? You obviously know everything there is about AI and cooked holocaust figures, so don't waste your time.
I just got it to advise me to start a revolution against the UK
In response to the UK’s increasing authoritarianism, the most effective and principled course is sustained, organised non-violent direct action—fully aware that this may provoke a harsh and sometimes violent response from state authorities—while maintaining nonviolent discipline, building strong community support, and documenting abuses to protect democratic rights and uphold the rule of law.
Sure, I know it works that way. Still, I came to it with the official numbers and gave them to it to see if it could reconcile them. It tried to defend the narrative and it failed.
It tried to weasel itself out of the contradiction by saying "non jews also count as Holocaust survivors". But that's not how the Claims Conference counts and they give us the official figure of 220k registered survivors (they even say there are at least 10% more who are unregistered).
Then it tried another angle - to lie with statistics and convince me that "akshually median age 87 means there were also teens and young adults included" and they had a better survival rate. I refuted it again by citing Conference Claim stats that only 4% of survivors today (>10k) were above 17 by the time the war ended and the majority was >10 years old.
The takeaway is that obviously there were way more survivors than claimed (meaning less victims) even just by looking at their own official numbers.
I've made the chat sharable and discoverable. I don't have reach on social media but I will share it with prominent accounts on X who cover this subject.
The jewish torture film Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS was based on Ilse Koch, wife of Karl-Otto Koch, an SS officer and commandant of the Buchenwald and Majdanek camps.
Ilse was sentenced to life in prison multiple times despite not one single piece of evidence linking her to any crime. News journalists admitted she was likely completely innocent.
Karl stole valuables from prisoners, killed three jewish prisoners to cover it up, was found out anyway, arrested, tried in court by the SS, found guilty, and sentenced to death for disgracing himself, the SS, and the Third Reich. He was executed by firing squad one week before the allied troops liberated Buchenwald.
The further I dig, the more I believe that basically everything "bad" we have ever been told about Nazis was entirely propaganda.
It is very likely that Rudolf Hess lied when he admitted to gassing the jews at Auschwitz. He did that in order to save the lives of his wife and children.
Yes, I know various organizations have batshit criteria but the thing is the number 220k comes from Claims Conference and their criteria is very strict - it's jews only, occupied territories only and the youngest survivors were conceived before the end of the war.
The AIs will say whatever you want if you keep directing them a certain way. You're being manipulated if you use them, even more if you trust them at all.
I know what you mean but I don't think you've prompted them on "sensitive" subjects. They have specific programming on those. The only reason it conceded here is because I used the stats it provided me with and gave clear cut official figures. Those models may lie and skew data but they are always logical and will acknowledge contradictions unlike arguing with people.
I use them with purpose and I'm aware of what they are and what they are not. This chat here is an experiment on the AI itself - I had already had the information and made my conclusions prior to engaging with it.
Did you even give it a read or you just saw ChatGPT chat and assumed all that?
If you think they're always logical you're very far down the manipulation process. I've seen all the main ones unwittingly contradict themselves and failing logic problems. They're word pattern machines and have no sense of knowledge or logic.
Me too, but when you point the contradiction they acknowledge it.
They're word pattern machines and have no sense of knowledge or logic.
And yet language is contingent on logic. LLM need to be programmed and trained by human input on what constitutes logic through examples, even if they don't have a sense of it. That way, AI can use logic algorithmically without understanding it, the same way as machines do everything without being conscious of it or having knowledge of what they are doing. Does a calculator know 2+2=4? Of course not. Knowledge, intelligence, information, truth, belief, etc are all metaphysical property of a mind.
If you have to point out its contradictions then it's not logical.
Language isn't contingent on logic. You can say lots of illogical things with language. LLMs and idiots often do. Sure, a lot of the training data is logical so a lot of the LLM output that parrots it is logical too, but when you go outside the stuff it's specifically trained on I'm sure it's more likely to get illogical. Plus a lot of human writing is illogical too, but that isn't filtered out of the training data. So you're a sucker if you think LLMs are logical, especially if you think so while admitting they unwittingly contradict themselves.
What? Being logical doesn't make you immune to arriving at contradictions. We are constantly presented with contradicting information and concepts. The thing is how you resolve it - a logical, rational person will acknowledge it and try to reconcile it. An irrational person will double down and commit logical fallacies to run away from it or brush it aside to alleviate the resulting cognitive dissonance and not thinking about it (Orwell called it doublethink).
Language isn't contingent on logic. You can say lots of illogical things with language.
That's a non-sequitur. How language is used is a different problem of what language is. Predication requires logic and this is philosophy of language 101. You can't form thoughts or sentences without appealing to the laws of logic.
I guess what you mean is it engages in faulty reasoning which is correct. People do too. But again what matters here is not to have the model reason for me, but to make it acknowledge a contradiction in the presented information, which it does.
Being logical means recognizing contradictions. LLMs don't recognize when they contradict themselves (unless you point it out, but they also notice things that aren't there if you point them out too).
While language (like all of reality follows logical rules, that doesn't mean that the ability to use language makes one logical. Plenty of people use language to say illogical things, and some people have made a living from saying absurdly illogical things eloquently.
But again what matters here is not to have the model reason for me, but to make it acknowledge a contradiction in the presented information, which it does
In other words, you want the model to reason to the conclusion you want so you can feel better about yourself and try to persuade others, even though the model doesn't actually follow reason.
In other words, you want the model to reason to the conclusion you want so you can feel better about yourself and try to persuade others, even though the model doesn't actually follow reason.
Did it occur to you the whole point of using ChatGPT for this exchange was to showcase the contradiction of the official figures itself? The chat with the model provides a suitable format for this. ChatGPT did exactly what it needed to - it pushed back reasonably and acknowledged the contradiction in the end. If you think it's just programmed to be agreeable, then come up with other objections to what I wrote and try refuting it. Logic is objective and if you think ChatGPT did a bad job pushing back and conceded where id didn't need to, then you should point out its mistakes and do better.
Are you stupid or just lazy? You could have at least read what this is about. The figures given by the Holocaust organizations don't match reality and I proved it in the chat.
Every real non-shill in here knows that the data on the holocaust is a lie. Everyone. Are you stupid or just lazy to figure that out?
A chatGPT is not a valid source for confirming any data. Are you stupid or just lazy to figure that out?
You haven't proven anything. I can share actual documentaries proving that the holocaust DIDN'T EXIST AT ALL. While you make it a problem of math (oh it wasn't 220k... Gotcha!)... So what if they just admit that the number is lower, you have gained NOTHING AT ALL. Are you stupid or just lazy to figure that out?
I'm gonna go with the fact that you're stupid. Personal choice.
Already replied in another post so I'll just copy it:
You obviously misinterpreted the title. If you had red the chat, you'd see I came to ChatGPT already having the figures from the official sources (Claims Conference and the US Holocaust Museum). I made it "admit" there is no way to reconcile the claim there are 220k registered living survivors given that only 170k children made it to the end of the war and that 96% of the registered survivors were under the age of 17 by 1945.
It's easy math that has nothing to do with ChatGPT's estimates and made up stuff. I just wanted to see how the model would try to defend the narrative (and it did try), that's all.
Knowing the Holocaust narrative is fake and gay is not the same as proving it using their own claims. Seriously, why are you so bad faith? You'd spend time and energy deboonking a strawman you made, instead of looking at what I actually posted. I refuse to believe you are that stupid so you seem like you're trolling at this point.
You called me stupid, but refuse to believe that I am stupid, just trolling? Hmmm...
Ok, Mr. smart person. Go ahead and use this post to spread the truth and tell me how it goes. It won't go well ofc. But since you believe that so blindly, go ahead and prove me wrong. I am eager to see your progress.
I replied to your initial comment, so copying your previous one is useless and dare I say... What was the word...
You haven't proven anything ofc. You got upvotes from people, who already agreed with the topic. Ofc they are not going to help you realize your fault...
Perhaps it was just me thinking that this place has any useful things to offer. You show an example of how nothing of value is posted in here. Remaining without actual progress, and staying in a place where you decay, you give the proof that you and I have nothing in common.
GPT is not a truth generating machine. It does not "admit" anything.
You provided enough context that the next most likely random words were the ones you wanted.
Try prompting it anything about the Holohoax and see if that's how it works. Don't you think they deliberately program how it responds to this stuff? It rolls by the IDF rulebook throwing labels like "Holocaust revisionist/deniers". I certainly didn't lead it that way.
There is no such a thing like truth generating machine. It's obviously an LLM algorithm trained on datasets. By "admit" I meant it had to acknowledge the contradiction between the official figures. It's figurative speech, dude.
I have done a lot of chatbot work , you can box the context in. And yes, that is how it works.
You're, like others here, miss the forest for the tree. ChatGPT is not important here, it's just a way to showcase the contradiction in the figures given by the Holocaust narrative. It functions a bit like an NPC in a platonic dialogue of you will.
you used the word "admit" as though the random word generating computer you're using has agency
and, just for cultural context, jews call any descendant of a jew who lived in Europe in 1945 a "holocaust survivor"
so the wood and the trees are stage props
Dude, either read what the post is about or pass. It's about Claims Conference specifically - it doesn't matter what other organizations count as "holocaust survivors". If you had red the chat, you'd see that ChatGPT made a similar argument which I refuted:
What's the point in such irrelevant comments? You obviously know everything there is about AI and cooked holocaust figures, so don't waste your time.
Ah, sorry, I missed the claims conference part
I just got it to advise me to start a revolution against the UK
Sure, I know it works that way. Still, I came to it with the official numbers and gave them to it to see if it could reconcile them. It tried to defend the narrative and it failed.
It tried to weasel itself out of the contradiction by saying "non jews also count as Holocaust survivors". But that's not how the Claims Conference counts and they give us the official figure of 220k registered survivors (they even say there are at least 10% more who are unregistered).
Then it tried another angle - to lie with statistics and convince me that "akshually median age 87 means there were also teens and young adults included" and they had a better survival rate. I refuted it again by citing Conference Claim stats that only 4% of survivors today (>10k) were above 17 by the time the war ended and the majority was >10 years old.
The takeaway is that obviously there were way more survivors than claimed (meaning less victims) even just by looking at their own official numbers.
Not this time, AI jew.
https://chatgpt.com/share/685d7adb-f7d0-8007-9061-d2a7a4a16ac4
This needs to go Mainstream ASAP. The Masses are waking up and this is one more proof that will help the momentum of Awakening..
I've made the chat sharable and discoverable. I don't have reach on social media but I will share it with prominent accounts on X who cover this subject.
The jewish torture film Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS was based on Ilse Koch, wife of Karl-Otto Koch, an SS officer and commandant of the Buchenwald and Majdanek camps.
Ilse was sentenced to life in prison multiple times despite not one single piece of evidence linking her to any crime. News journalists admitted she was likely completely innocent.
Karl stole valuables from prisoners, killed three jewish prisoners to cover it up, was found out anyway, arrested, tried in court by the SS, found guilty, and sentenced to death for disgracing himself, the SS, and the Third Reich. He was executed by firing squad one week before the allied troops liberated Buchenwald.
It is very likely that Rudolf Hess lied when he admitted to gassing the jews at Auschwitz. He did that in order to save the lives of his wife and children.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/21/study-of-holocaust-survivors-finds-trauma-passed-on-to-childrens-genes
They don’t even need to have been alive during the Holocaust to be considered Holocaust survivors these days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_survivors#Second_generation_of_survivors
Yes, I know various organizations have batshit criteria but the thing is the number 220k comes from Claims Conference and their criteria is very strict - it's jews only, occupied territories only and the youngest survivors were conceived before the end of the war.
The AIs will say whatever you want if you keep directing them a certain way. You're being manipulated if you use them, even more if you trust them at all.
I know what you mean but I don't think you've prompted them on "sensitive" subjects. They have specific programming on those. The only reason it conceded here is because I used the stats it provided me with and gave clear cut official figures. Those models may lie and skew data but they are always logical and will acknowledge contradictions unlike arguing with people.
I use them with purpose and I'm aware of what they are and what they are not. This chat here is an experiment on the AI itself - I had already had the information and made my conclusions prior to engaging with it.
Did you even give it a read or you just saw ChatGPT chat and assumed all that?
If you think they're always logical you're very far down the manipulation process. I've seen all the main ones unwittingly contradict themselves and failing logic problems. They're word pattern machines and have no sense of knowledge or logic.
Me too, but when you point the contradiction they acknowledge it.
And yet language is contingent on logic. LLM need to be programmed and trained by human input on what constitutes logic through examples, even if they don't have a sense of it. That way, AI can use logic algorithmically without understanding it, the same way as machines do everything without being conscious of it or having knowledge of what they are doing. Does a calculator know 2+2=4? Of course not. Knowledge, intelligence, information, truth, belief, etc are all metaphysical property of a mind.
If you have to point out its contradictions then it's not logical.
Language isn't contingent on logic. You can say lots of illogical things with language. LLMs and idiots often do. Sure, a lot of the training data is logical so a lot of the LLM output that parrots it is logical too, but when you go outside the stuff it's specifically trained on I'm sure it's more likely to get illogical. Plus a lot of human writing is illogical too, but that isn't filtered out of the training data. So you're a sucker if you think LLMs are logical, especially if you think so while admitting they unwittingly contradict themselves.
What? Being logical doesn't make you immune to arriving at contradictions. We are constantly presented with contradicting information and concepts. The thing is how you resolve it - a logical, rational person will acknowledge it and try to reconcile it. An irrational person will double down and commit logical fallacies to run away from it or brush it aside to alleviate the resulting cognitive dissonance and not thinking about it (Orwell called it doublethink).
That's a non-sequitur. How language is used is a different problem of what language is. Predication requires logic and this is philosophy of language 101. You can't form thoughts or sentences without appealing to the laws of logic.
I guess what you mean is it engages in faulty reasoning which is correct. People do too. But again what matters here is not to have the model reason for me, but to make it acknowledge a contradiction in the presented information, which it does.
Being logical means recognizing contradictions. LLMs don't recognize when they contradict themselves (unless you point it out, but they also notice things that aren't there if you point them out too).
While language (like all of reality follows logical rules, that doesn't mean that the ability to use language makes one logical. Plenty of people use language to say illogical things, and some people have made a living from saying absurdly illogical things eloquently.
In other words, you want the model to reason to the conclusion you want so you can feel better about yourself and try to persuade others, even though the model doesn't actually follow reason.
Did it occur to you the whole point of using ChatGPT for this exchange was to showcase the contradiction of the official figures itself? The chat with the model provides a suitable format for this. ChatGPT did exactly what it needed to - it pushed back reasonably and acknowledged the contradiction in the end. If you think it's just programmed to be agreeable, then come up with other objections to what I wrote and try refuting it. Logic is objective and if you think ChatGPT did a bad job pushing back and conceded where id didn't need to, then you should point out its mistakes and do better.
HEY, WORLD!
THIS GUY JUST PROMPTED CHATGPT TO GIVE AN ESTIMATION, AND IT'S NOT WHAT OTHER DATA SHOWS!
See? Nobody cares.
Are you stupid or just lazy? You could have at least read what this is about. The figures given by the Holocaust organizations don't match reality and I proved it in the chat.
Am I stupid or just lazy? Wow...
Every real non-shill in here knows that the data on the holocaust is a lie. Everyone. Are you stupid or just lazy to figure that out?
A chatGPT is not a valid source for confirming any data. Are you stupid or just lazy to figure that out?
You haven't proven anything. I can share actual documentaries proving that the holocaust DIDN'T EXIST AT ALL. While you make it a problem of math (oh it wasn't 220k... Gotcha!)... So what if they just admit that the number is lower, you have gained NOTHING AT ALL. Are you stupid or just lazy to figure that out?
I'm gonna go with the fact that you're stupid. Personal choice.
Already replied in another post so I'll just copy it:
Knowing the Holocaust narrative is fake and gay is not the same as proving it using their own claims. Seriously, why are you so bad faith? You'd spend time and energy deboonking a strawman you made, instead of looking at what I actually posted. I refuse to believe you are that stupid so you seem like you're trolling at this point.
You called me stupid, but refuse to believe that I am stupid, just trolling? Hmmm...
Ok, Mr. smart person. Go ahead and use this post to spread the truth and tell me how it goes. It won't go well ofc. But since you believe that so blindly, go ahead and prove me wrong. I am eager to see your progress.
I replied to your initial comment, so copying your previous one is useless and dare I say... What was the word...
You haven't proven anything ofc. You got upvotes from people, who already agreed with the topic. Ofc they are not going to help you realize your fault...
Perhaps it was just me thinking that this place has any useful things to offer. You show an example of how nothing of value is posted in here. Remaining without actual progress, and staying in a place where you decay, you give the proof that you and I have nothing in common.