A.I.

And note that it does so in just a few seconds.



What we typically deal with here is the discussion above the discussion. That is, we see people in the pit below throwing mud at each other and we are able to comment on it from above and describe the lay of the land, as it where, even while the people who are covered in mud do not see who put them in this pit or why.

So we know that ChatGPT is smart in some way...perhaps a new sort of intelligence. It is clearly trained to produce coherent answers. And part of that "training" leaves a social, moral, and political bias to it. It couldn't be otherwise, for unlike the belief of libertarians, there is no "neutral" position.

So I don't mind that ChatGPT has some kind of bias (or starting assumptions) for it would indeed be a gigantic and almost useless waffle if it didn't. Even so, it's clear the creators of it wish to avoid controversy regarding most political, social, or moral questions...at least for the time being.

In that general context, it occurs to me that ChatGPT is no more or less programmed than a typical person. In fact, via interacting with it, it forces one to recognize that we all have a bit of "ChatGPT" in all of us. We are all, to some extent, implanted and "trained" with information, with political and social outlooks, etc. This is a needed and natural part of "enculturation" for, again, contrary to libertarian philosophy, man needs a fair amount of molding and training in order to be civilized.

The argument is about what type and how much moral training is needed, not if. And we see today the forces of the Left running almost unopposed the apparatuses of this moral training: in schools, entertainment, the media, big business, various public and private institutions, the Deep State bureaucracy, and in politics itself.

That we can even interact with ChatGPT in a way that is nearly impossible with 90% of people (who have become complete mindless drones of the Progressively-trained system) is itself remarkable, especially considering that, by and large, it is made by and for libtards according to their agenda.

In my opinion, speed is the real advantage of all computing. ChatGPT would appear to be no exception.  

I would say, "ChatGPT has a bit of us in it." Certainly that bit is refined and honed to a greater degree of exactitude than most of us generally exhibit, but like the monster created by Dr. Frankenstein, it is our invention made out of bits and pieces of material at hand. 

An astonishing point that must certainly be true to some extent.

We can perhaps understand the gravity of the situation by considering the converse:

People (including ChatGPT) really do believe that we (and other lifeforms) came about via slow, constant, ever-improving evolution via the "mutation/natural-election" model. I've mentioned in the past why this is impossible (for all but micro-evolution).

But, be this as it may, this is what people think. Therefore the basic assumption is that any trait we have is there for a specific purpose. Okay, fair enough. I believe that as well. It's just that I think there is a higher purpose as to our make up rather than a random utilitarian purpose in regards to merely passing on genes in a universe where "purpose" is considered to be but a mere illusion.

So imagine (not all that long ago) cavemen (and cavewomen) sitting around the fire cooking a hard-earned piece of bison meat. They have language and rudimentary tool-making abilities. They are part of a social group. They bury their dead and have some conception of something larger than they are.

But where in this scenario is the brain than can do sophisticated things, such as the theorizing of an Albert Einstein or the programming acumen of a Steve Wozniak (Apple co-founder)? The fact is, we don't know why these abilities exist or even how they can exist. They serve zero purpose (illusory or otherwise) in the basic survival/reproduction requirements of an evolving species. They shouldn't be there.

But they are. And the thing is, we don't know they are there until we use them. We can sit here chatting thousands of miles away because people in the past (and in the present) refine and use these latent capabilities.

So what happens to mankind and his civilization when we stop using these abilities? It's not likely that we'll lose them, for they were there all along whether we used them or not. But can the modern civilization that is built upon using these latent capabilities maintain itself if most become addled from the technology doing most of the work and most of the thinking?

The answer is, "yes," but only in a different form. Most will no longer be active agents in their own lives, for the thinking shall not have gone away. It will have simply moved to the top, to our Tech Overlords or the equivalent. There will always be people who will go on thinking, for no other purpose than power and the enrichment of themselves. The infrastructure for this is already there and, probably, is actively assembling itself further.

So you forget a few phone numbers. Big deal. Or maybe it is. Elois and Morlocks. How does this current story end any differently?

If I buy some credits in order to use DALL-E, I'm going to issue this command: Draw a virtue-signaller falling off the precipice of his own moral superiority.



And have we been exercising the muscle of independence, self-reliance, and just basic moral reasoning? Talk about a muscle that has atrophied. Or to put it another way.

"Moral superiority" is often a notion forwarded by fundamentalists and those trying to win an argument by appealing to authority, not reason.

Although some moral notions are often considered at least different from others, often rooted in little more than habit or ancient religious texts, all views of morality are ultimately subjective.

However, many Leftist fucktards do, in fact, use the notion of moral superiority in order to try to forward their Marxist deceptive beliefs regarding the supposed superiority of the individual via complete obedience to the state.

Okay, what gave it away that that wasn't ChatGPT? It was the "fucktard" comment, wasn't it?

"I don't think that I will take it, 'Cause they tried too hard to fake it, And I'll never see that Covid strain again, oh no"

"I don't think that I can shake it, "Cause they worked so long to make it, A jab to kill mankind, to bring us to an end, oh no." 

I would say that ChatKFZ strikes again. I like it. No bad for a humanoid.

Before instructing ChatGPT (or ChatKFZ, for that matter), I wrote the first two stanzas of the song. I didn't want to be influenced by Chat GPT (or ChatKFZ, for that matter). Here are the results, with mine posted first. At first I was going to have you guess which is which and post the two without attribution. But to me it was so obvious, there didn't seem a point to go this route.

[Instructions for ChatGPT] Write a parody of the Simon and Garfunkel song, "Keep the Customer Satisfied." The theme for the parody is "Woke" culture, political correctness, and authoritarian liberalism.

Gee, but it's great to be so Woke
Woke is where I want to be
I've been privileged far too long, comrade
And if you Woke along
I know you'll find the right identity

It's the same ol' quarry
Everywhere I go
I see man-speak, white tribal
I hear micro-aggressions, certifiable
And I'm one more step in the decline
Two steps to keep you all in line
Just trying to keep the proletariat terrified
Terrified

---

(To the tune of "Keep the Customer Satisfied" by Simon and Garfunkel)

Gee, I try to speak my mind, but it's hard to find,
The words to say these days, without crossing some thin lines.
'Cause the woke are all around, and they're always on the prowl,
If you don't watch your step, they'll surely take you down.

And it's, "Hey, Mr. PC, can you lighten up for me?
I'm just trying to express my thoughts, and you're all over me."
But the cancel culture's here, and it's hard to be sincere,
'Cause in this world of wokeness, you must live in fear.

They say you've got to be so careful now,
Don't offend, don't step on toes, don't question how.
But free speech is fading fast, and it's such a crying shame,
In this land of political correctness, we're all fair game.

Oh, the list of banned words grows, and it just goes to show,
That some folks are so uptight, they can't let opinions flow.
And they claim it's all for good, to make the world more just,
But sometimes it feels like they've lost touch with trust.

And it's, "Hey, Mr. PC, can you lighten up for me?
I'm just trying to express my thoughts, and you're all over me."
But the cancel culture's here, and it's hard to be sincere,
'Cause in this world of wokeness, you must live in fear.

They say you've got to be so careful now,
Don't offend, don't step on toes, don't question how.
But free speech is fading fast, and it's such a crying shame,
In this land of political correctness, we're all fair game.

So I'll keep my thoughts inside, with nowhere to confide,
In this world of fragile egos, and the rules they can't hide.
But I hope one day we'll see, a more open society,
Where we can speak our minds, without anxiety.

And it's, "Hey, Mr. PC, can you lighten up for me?
I'm just trying to express my thoughts, and you're all over me."
But the cancel culture's here, and it's hard to be sincere,
'Cause in this world of wokeness, you must live in fear.

They say you've got to be so careful now,
Don't offend, don't step on toes, don't question how.
But free speech is fading fast, and it's such a crying shame,
In this land of political correctness, we're all fair game.

What ChatGPT wrote doesn't resemble a parody of the S&G song. It has some good concepts here and there but is decidedly robotic in its output this time.

I consider rap music to be an assault on music.

Much of what one reads at well-known sites is junk, so I wonder how much worse AI generated rubbish could be. That said, AI journalism is dishonest at its core. SI should be charged with fraud for misrepresenting its product. I understand they want to save money or can't find literate writers. Yet they know that a very large percentage of the public would not want to read AI generated pieces thus by admitting the use of AI, SI would lose readers i.e. money. Tough choice.

Fake journalists