Nothing new, disagree with the consensus over there even a little bit and you're lambasted. If your disagreement falls within their Overton Window you'll just get roasted for not keeping the faith but if your disagreement is outside of it you get banned immediately.

The whole Q movement has a ton in common with high control groups (aka cults) so it's not surprising behavior

Yes, precisely. But to say it tells lies or is deceived is to humanize it, which is imo a huge conspiracy in and of itself. People will accept AI governance because they will think it's smarter than them because they've come to believe it actually "thinks", and use of language (e.g. referring to it as something with the capability to lie) is part of instilling that belief. I don't think OP is part of that aspect of the conspiracy, I think he's been swept up by it

If you acknowledge it's a bot, how can you possibly think it has the faculties to lie or be deceived? If anything, my answer places far less confidence in the technology than yours

Grok is an LLM, it predicts what words it should generate based on the context you've provided and the data it's ingested (and then iterates continuously during generation, based on the context it is generating as it answers)

It does not lie nor can it be deceived because it does not have the faculties for such behavior

Channel got nuked over this it seems

USBID has entered the chat

Nothing substantive to add but still needing to get the last word. Thanks for continuing to prove my assessment and have fun out there

Middle school tier retorts, middle school tier understanding of technology. You attempted to attack my ego in hopes of incensing me. People attempting to provoke (instead of debate) go after others in ways they know would get a rise out of themselves. Make of that what you will

Parallel profiling was not used to train "LMM"s.

Regarding my other point, you continue to prove it. You literally don't understand the architecture if you think it's the quality of training data that has anything to do with the system's inability to engage in logic. But you'll keep overrating yourself (like somehow thinking it should be a big deal that you made a poor attempt at a veiled insult), narcissism is big in conspiracy circles these days

Why would I assume my data was used to train the AI? I've had very little online footprint outside of here for decades.

So no I didn't see that as calling me stupid, I saw that conclusion as you exposing your ignorance about the inner workings of LLMs which you continue to do. If it massages your ego to insinuate your mental superiority while discussing topics you have limited understanding of by all means continue

You called my post saying "no logic is happening" an oversimplification so, you pretty much did my friend. If you don't understand how the 'LMM's work and don't understand how a word prediction engine can at times appear to follow logic I don't know what to tell you

LLMs can process logical statements but are not engaging in a logical process

I don't understand if that's supposed to be a refutation, but LLMs do not use logic

It's just trained as a word predictor, there is no logic happening

I want to know who is down voting this when it's pretty much the most important thing happening

I generally agree with what you're getting at, but you can't take a chat with a language model as proof or even evidence, of something like this. The fact that so many people do is concerning... AI governance will be celebrated

Someone might do that because they actually have interest in finding the truth, and a clearer picture of that can emerge through dialogue. But you? Since you're very obviously not interested in that I have no answer

You've presented nothing else to refute or debate aside from your behavior itself

You don't have the ability to, so you shouldn't. You've certainly spent enough time that you can't use not having the time as an excuse, but you'd rather spend the time acting like a special, chosen one (narcissistic behavior) and keeping that illusion intact by refusing to actually talk about your ideas. You cared enough about what people thought to make an initial response (though that was also full of insults and contempt to people who don't share your "enlightened" status) and to keep replying, so you obviously care about either what I or what observers think (on top of needing to get your quips in, ego feeding behavior) and perhaps an observer could benefit from viewing this conversation if actual ideas were exchanged. But they wouldn't, because you lack the ability

You obviously idolize Trump with your Qbrained worldview (you will split hairs and say it's not idolization but something else so I don't care to debate this). I find it extremely funny you keep coming back to make quips for that quick dopamine hit but you still have never once actually been able to advocate for your ideas

I tend to agree with not trusting anyone, it is more difficult that way (mentally and emotionally) but it's almost a guarantee that anyone on the world stage is not our friend. Trust is reserved for people you know and faith for God

I think what beef's getting at is there are a lot of reasons to be suspicious of Tulsi and her making this clarifying statement is likely part of the march to war using the same playbook as 2003

Yes you need some small amount of property to do it (though bantams of the right breeds can handle a very, small amount of space) and you need to do a modicum of research and planning to not just get them all killed, but it's rather simple overall

The new thing is showing pictures of chickens or referencing how they were raised. But all conspiracy theorists should be raising their own chickens, they are an incredibly reliable source of incredibly nutritious food and they will do double duty as pest control

I have found that even among "truth seekers" there is a tendency to seek out heroes and to cling to information, no matter how illogical, that aligns with preconceived notions.

It seems to be the default for the vast, vast majority of people