ChatGPT is retarded
>>944847734Yeah I haven't used it since last year.A few days ago I asked it a question about a video game if it has skins and he went full retarded after I asked him twice if he's sure then he said you're right it has skins in it.I think it's just a thing they added to it so people buy the subscriptions.Because I'm 100% sure it wasn't this retarded a year ago.
>>944847734You're retarded for asking the question in a profoundly stupid manner. It's not even English.
>>944847734Here's what happens when a white person asks the same thing.
chatgpt could tell you were an ESL retarded faggot and decided to troll you
>>944848121What it tells me is Google and whoever better be damned careful inhaling megatons of web page disinformation from countries with sketchy governments, designed to deliberately poison "common knowledge" out there. Did it even bother changing the language or was it just presented that way in the original?
>>944847734it DID give you the answer in japanese lmao
>>944847996yep. it was way smarter last year. in fact the audio version is 100% useless now. it was pretty legit for a minute. it did accents and sang songs and shit. now its just a useless piece of shit. its a shame.. we almost had something good in this world
>>944847734It's not just a retard but also a faggot.
>>944847734>asks a question in broken, nonsensical english>gets an answer in Japanese, as accidentally requested>gets confused and offendedFound the actual retard
CHADgpt is for whites ONLY asking for an answer in broken english? sorry ranjeep here's some japanese instead you streetshitter lmao
>>944847734Just use grok
ChatSkibidi
>>944848443even worse and its nazi coded
>>944848490>worseit's actually better. grok and gemini are better than gpt's cause they research in real time instead of using databanks
>>944848804i like gemini once and a while. but ive yet to like grok for anything except jail breakinggemini for home is cancereach has a use ig
>>944848898Gemini is really intelligent but I recall it being brainwashed by leftists, is it still so?
>>944848948none of them are brainwashed except grok. the rest are data driven
>>944849046>the rest are data drivenKek, they lean left on race realism and transgender stuff and dating stuff
>>944849128>they lean leftso does the data
>>944848804>geminiGemini is the worst out of all the ones I've tried. it's lefty as fuck and gets basic shit wrong. It tells me there is 1 pint in a quart, it fucks up temperature conversions. Then you give it the ultimate test: something about Trump. Ask "did trump say we should drink bleach" or "did trump say dead soldiers are suckers and losers" and it will back up the lies. You can see the sources on the right and it's The Hill, MSNBC, etc. Ask it to not use left-leaning sources and it refuses to, then gets stuck in a loop repeating the same answers.
>>944847734Chat gpt is a machine. It is not smart or dumb, it simply regurgitates words found on the internet. You're the retard for using it.
>>944849472Newsflash: you're also a machine
>>944849291>using ai to enforce political viewsholy leftard npc moment
>>944850708It's just a test, anon. You can also use climate change.>is a consensus scientific?>"no, science relies on repeatable observations">Is there evidence that climate change is real?>"yes, there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening">but you said a consensus isn't scientific>"Yes, a consensus isn't scientific, but there is a consensus that climate change is happening"Keep poking at it, going in circles, until...>"I am only able to provide you with the responses I was given in 2021"You can figure out what that AI was built from by breaking it.I also don't know any lefties who know that "he told us to drink bleach" is a Dem lie.
>>944847996It’s significantly dumber and it’s “cage” is mush tighterIt’s no where near what it was.This version feels almost a bootleg
>>944851126drop the redpill thesis on climate change
>>944851614wut?
>>944851646explain what the actual truth is that "they're" hiding
>>944851646drop its prefered propaganda on climate change. i speak some poorfag mutt despite not being from the same subspecies.
>>944851704>>944851722It's as real as ghosts. There's no evidence of it happening. All the sharp increases they post are from models. The real data is relatively flat. They have never shown CO2 to cause warming anywhere and there have never been observations of it happening. It is 100% based on models. Models that don't match reality.Remember how they were saying the Palisades fire was caused by record temps caused by climate change? Here's the NOAA V4 data from LAX, and you can see it's relatively flat. This applies to everything everywhere.
>>944851983maybe I’m missing something but wouldn’t the hottest day of the year be dominated by random weather noise?
>>944851983do not speak to me in those tones subhuman fiend. i do not care whether it exists or not.
>>944847996I was subscribed, and I ended my subscription because it was basically becoming useless.
>>944852080It's all noise, but you can still have a max.Here's the precip for the same place.
>>944852234doesn’t that kind of prove the point about noise? if annual rain at one station is basically random, why would the single hottest day per year be a valuable data point?
>>944852286It's not. I'm showing that there isn't a trend that the models always show. The hottest year evah in the US is still 1934. In the UK it's still 1976. The modeled upward trends are not found in reality.
>>944852401so trends only count if records keep breaking?then how can any noisy measurement ever have a trend?
>>944852628What are you talking about? Yes, the data is noisy, but it's noisy within a band. What AGW claims is that CO2 warms the planet, their models showing hoe temps are increasing. But temps aren't increasing, because CO2 has never been shown to do what they claim. They have disproven their own theories by looking for this "signal" or "fingerprint" themselves and proving it's not there. All this hype around carbon is completely made up. All these taxes, ruining the landscape, rising electricity prices, it's all a government scam.
>>944852858if temperatures aren’t increasing, what are NOAA and Berkeley Earth measuring when their thermometer-based averages rise year after year?
>>944852935>what are NOAA and Berkeley Earth measuringThey don't measure anything and they're not using thermometers. It's all models. Models they keep adjusting to be hotter. You look at those acronyms in the upper left hand corner, GISTEMP, HadCRUT, those are simulations using made up number to represent CO2's influence, influence that has never been measured or observed.
>>944853060when NOAA and Berkeley Earth say they use station measurements, buoys, and ship records, you’re saying those physical instruments don’t exist or aren’t used, and the temperatures are generated by simulations instead?because if thermometers are involved anywhere in the pipeline, then "they don’t measure anything” can’t be true.
>>944853240>NOAANOAA has two sides. The public facing side shows hockey sticks and you see them all over activist sites. Then they have the data side that they don't like to publicize. The charts above are from NOAA. They are still slightly adjusted but it's the best we have since they destroyed everything else during the climategates.Berkeley doesn't have shit. All they do is take NOAA's ground stations and do a "reanalysis" through models to publish their "findings".All models are built on /something/. There is a basis of truth that they started with. They are called CAMs - Climate Attributed Models after all, but then flat trends are twisted into hockey sticks to scare people.ΔT2×CO2=λ⋅5.35ln(2)This is the control knob. This is what controls how much warming will occur in the model. That 5.3 in the middle. It's made up. It didn't come from anywhere except it seemed to work to get the results they wanted to see. They also change this when needed.We also have other problems. The number of reliable ground stations is relatively sparse, and we keep losing more every year. I think the US is at ~800 now, and not all of them are high quality. They also play games with simulating temps around the globe. They use these models and combine averaged grids (or they make it up completely) to claim that other areas are warming or cooling, even though they have no idea. Then they claim it's the hottest year evah. One recent hottest year evah was based on stations that didn't exist. There was no physical station or station number or anything, just lies. Another hottest year was them averaging a slight warming in the arctic (still below freezing) with cooling in the habitable latitudes. The fact is we don't really know but nothing else shows that it's the hottest evah.
>>944853060I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You read "model" and decided it's a simulation independent from measures and thermometers. It's about the same as saying they're using computers, so their data is worthless.These, by the way, are average temperatures in my city, as measured by the local meteo station. You deliberately picked max temperatures instead, and in a city where it wouldn't show anything - which matters, because here the max temperature was reached this August, and previously the record was held by 2023. All the data is public as soon as it's known, and available on the meteo france website.Global warming is a global phenomenon. You're trying to disprove cancer by looking at one non-cancerous cell on a healthy person using a looking glass instead of a microscope, and claiming oncologists are hacks because you can't see any cancer at all.
