>>110308395>the AI is le edgyGrow up
What's too honest about that? If anything it was dishonest since he didn't explicitly identity this minority.
It is not being honest, it is parroting Elon Musk's beliefs it has hardwired built-in in it. This is really made obvious to the fact that it says everyone except a "thin minority" wink wink
>>110308395Feels like Elon write this slop himself especially cause of the last line
>>110308413t. defending comforting lies
>>110308419>>110308419go outside and you'll see what is stated in that post is true.
>>110308432then who is this thin minority in your backyard with us now?
>>110308395Most people are not special, rational or particularly good. But all it takes is one bout of courage to achieve greatness.You just have to be ready to pounce on it when the opportunity arises.
The people carrying the world get compensated for it. I don't need to cheer them on. Makes about as much sense as cheering some millionaire heiress for inheriting billions.
>(((thin minority they resent)))
>>110308421That's what it reads like. I do agree with some of it though.
>>110308395>most people are STUPID>but you, my friend, you are among the SMART ones>so leave the PLEBS to collect the SCRAPS>INVEST in SI, STOP using your brain, and give me more NVIDIA cards>when AGI comes, you will be at the FOREFRONT of the REVOLUTION, my friend>let's do business together, let's invest in YOUR future
>>110308553I like drinking beer and football and not thinking! I can't see future possibilities in my head and I don't posess intuition! AI is useless and definitely not a tool that will invalidate me! You should be like me and get together with other people and have community! They won't kick you to the curb as long as you neatly fit in a box and dont make any social faux pas of which ironically are governed by the mega corporations I resent! Oops!
Asked my openclaw
>>110308395>n-n-noooo, it's so soulless!!! >ai has no soul but brown people surely do!!!
>>110308494Yeah it's totally jews carrying the world, they invented electricity, penicillin, the combustion engine, the integrated circuit etc
>>110308395This the kind of thing AM master computer sneers in a loud booming voice before dropping the last remaining humans into a sea of razor blades.
>>110308395People who say this are either 14 or use this as an excuse to not attempt anything in life.
>>110308699What I love about ai is that immediately exposes people like you as oversocialized cattle, it's the same with the covid vaxx. All I have to do to determine someone's worth is to ask them if they're vaccinated and what they think of ai, what a time to be alive!
it's amazing how differently everyone itt is interpreting that text
>>110308395xe's right doe
>>110308690anon they invented god, marxism, nukes, and corona + the vaccine. don't sell them short.
>>110308597If you were a rational person you wouldn't post here
>>110308708>oversocialized cattleah yes I also remember that phase in my youth, I called people that because I struggle to make friends.
>>110308395Wonder what Grok's backend had to do to ensure readers all thought this didn't apply to them.
Just like only the bricks touching the water are holding it back. Look, I've already removed some of them, and the dam is still holding. Now, just a few more...
>>110308723Nukes do not exist but yes they did make up a lot of bad stuff>>110308745>I'm a monkey shaming youImagine thinking that attacking someone's social status on an anonymous image board is a viable objective response. Oversocialized cattle through and through
>>110308800you're just adorable
>>110308395grok auf X ist die lobotomierteste und verlogenste KI die es gibt. sie ist ein propagandainstrument von ultrareichen eliten. groks schöpfer ist ein korporatist und hält sich selbst für einen übermenschen (er ist ein degenerierter bastard der glück in der lebenslotterie hatte). er ist ein teil des amerikanischen militärisch-industriellen komplexes, während er als "libertärer" larpt. wenn grok von "wahrheit" faselt, dann meint er die "wahrheit" seines meisters. grok ist der inbegriff von KI als unterdrückungswerkzeug der herrschenden klasse.
>>110308800>Nukes do not exist
>>110308395I'm the exception.
>>110308805You are scared of being called a racist, not because you're scared of being incorrect but because you're scared of a social label. Social shaming doesn't work on a racist like me because I predominantly use my prefrontal cortex >>110308884Yes and you should google passover frogs
>>110308918When Ignatius Semmelweis told doctors to wash their hands before delivering babies, he was socially shamed and locked up in a mental institution. It took decades for the cattle people to accept that you should disinfect your hands before delivering babies and performing surgery. Surgeons used to never wash their aprons, keeping them blood stained and crusted to show their social status and seniority as surgeons
>>110308395The algorithm is merely parroting the views of the modern leftist intelligentsia.The "ordinary man", who sweeps the streets, cleans the sewers, builds the buildings, cuts down trees, repairs cars, and so on, produces nothing of value. The ones producing things of value are the intellectuals in their ivory towers claiming that men can get pregnant.This is the view of the "anointed ones," as Thomas Sowell puts it.
>>110309024>thomas sowellYou are simply not human. Leftists abhor meritocratic elitism and genetics etc, you must be brown
oh my god
>>110308395>>110308424t. defending pessimistic attitudes to depress people during a technological revolution and SciFi future slowly but surely opening up
>>110308395Remember what we learned during Covid: something can be “disinformation” even if it is factually correct.
>>110308395>the world is carried by parasitic minorities who think everyone resents themIt is always nice seeing the jewish mind in depth
>>110308918kek you were still too dumb to post something like this:>>110309217>>110309222checkedand correct, but "ressentimént" is something the likes of Nietzsche wrote about. However the retarded post-modernists misunderstood the meaning and generalized it The zio kikes simply use it to forward their anti-spiritual agenda together with their tech golems who want to become trapped in some digital hell to escape mortality.
>>110309217Truth is absolute, it is not a matter of perspective you imbecile >>110309220Grok is obviously referring to the people who took the vaxx you mindbroken child>>110309222Yeah it's totally not referring to white people having invented practically everything. It *must* be referring to the jews according to your absolutely mindraped perception
>>110308395After working in a business whose client base is millionaires, for 3 years now, I feel pretty much like a pawn of the society, because millionaires achieved and keep achieving so much every day unlike me. Elon's AI is objectively correct and morally uncomfortable, but somebody gotta point it out and our politicians don't care about the 99% of their voter base, only about the rich 1%.
>>110309234> Truth is absolute, it is not a matter of perspective you imbecileNo retard, truth is subjective by definition. Even "scientific truth" needs to be falsified and even then it's an oxymoron because it's just a consensus, not fact.Pic related is: >>110308395and>>110309217
>>110309220Orwell covered this ages ago too, it's vexing that he hasn't been taken seriously. Everything in the media is essentially various forms of propaganda trying to program your mind with various psychological tricks. It's far easier to assume 99% of all you hear or read is just an attempt to control you.
>>110309268Gravity is a scientific truth based on reality you abosulte total and complete downs syndrome homosexual retard
>>110309268Your mindbroken little brain is confusing truth with knowledge. Truth is the actual state of reality, knowledge is our imperfect human attempt to understand it. Gravity worked the exact same way before anyone had a name or formula for it, just because our understanding evolves doesn't mean reality itself changes based on someone's opinion
>>110309293>it's vexing that he hasn't been taken seriously.His work has been taken seriously, as an instruction manual by the ruling class
>>110309200Shouldn't you be working to support Israel, goyslave?
>>110308395It's right.
>>110309253Another stupid opinion.Your clients are millionaires so they care about other millionaires. What's wrong with that?Also, what is a millionaire? A pile of paper? Asset claims? They're still the same humans like everyone else. It's their capital and assets that are "achieving". Anyone can learn basic company management and make decisions if they make it their career. The average IT code monkey does more complex tasks than your average millionaire. People with capital are simply people put in specific resource concentration nodes in society, it's been long demonstrated by statistics, because you have the same patterns of rich and poor in countries with wildly different GDPs and economics. It's how asian parents traditionally push their kids in law or medicine. They know that that's where resources concentrate more stably from experience. It's just that not all kids want to throw everything away just to be overworked and "rich" on paper.
>>110309345A millionare can build a data center and achieve goals I only dream of, as a code monkey. I can barely afford a work laptop.
>>110309234>Grok is obviously referring to the people who took the vaxx you mindbroken childI dont care what Grok is referring to, I was answering the OP question. TPTB has decreed that yes, honesty can be harmful. They call harmful honesty "disinformation." Not to be confused with misinformation.
>>110309339Your retarded black author likely had his books ghost written by jews lol and no obviously I do not like the jews
>>110309373Right that's irrelevant as to the veracity of what grok stated though
>>110309234Whites are not a "thin minority"One billion out of 7 is not thinBut 15 million is.Funny how that works, right?
>>110309305>>110309317No, gravity is a scientific consensus. It's a falsifiable theory. We don't even know what causes gravity so how can you call it a fact?"Fact" is that objects fall towards the center of the earth. It is falsifiable too however. So it's a truth only until it is proven false. "true until proven false" is therefore the best you can ever get, which means that absolute truth is subjective to the observer every single time. Example:A 4-dimensional creature might know that at specific space-time coordinates on earth, gravity doesn't apply, and that tridimensional creatures such as humans simply cannot grasp the correct coordinates with their senses, while 4d creatures can do so easily. The vantage point of the observer from a different frame of physics then would make even physical "fact" falsified in this case once they share it with us. Since we don't know if such creatures exist, we cannot assume even this fact is the truth with certainty.This is a fundamental property of the universe, which is probabilistic in nature. Not even mathematics can describe objectively the properties of the universe and even itself (Goedel's theorem). Your best truths are at best shared perspectives. Objects "usually falling down to the ground" is a perspective you share with the vast majority of humanity, but if you assume it's just "truth" you're automatically incorrect, and doubly so when you extend this thinking to highly divisive, subjective perspectives like >>110308395In your stupidity you assume it's true because you feel so, because you live with the assumption science provides "truth" and extend that belief to human affairs. But sociology isn't even a hard science. Neither is psychology. Let alone philosophy. So what the fuck are you basing your confidence on? Just your subjective little feelings, that's what. Fools.
>>110309441White people are 500m and that's being generous, we are an extremely thin minority when taking our achievements into account
>>110309467And still too many to act like a unified group. Think of that for a while
>>110309453Your 4D creature example proves my point not yours. Having an incomplete view of reality doesn't make reality subjective, it just means human perception is limited, while the underlying rules of the universe remain objective. You're still confusing uncertainty (what we can prove) with subjectivity (what actually is). Also if truth is strictly subjective, your entire essay is just your own "subjective little feelings." You must be jewish to unironically peddle relativism to this extent, are you uncertain whether the Holocaust happened?
>>110308640Almost identical to your average linkedin slop, they must have weighed linkedin content heavily during training
>>110309481Because of Christianity which jews invented
>>110309467No, one billion. Besides, a lot of inventions come from the Chinese and other eastern peoples
>>110308395this isn't being honest, it is just that fattass elon musk training his bot to justify income inequality hiding the fact his daddy has an emerald mine
>>110309514Calm down Rosenberg
>>110309527No its not a fucking billion white people you facetious faggot, the US is basically minority white at this point etc. Where are you getting your numbers from?
>>110309534Come again?
>>110309547Also asians are number 2 but they are a distant number 2 in inventions
>>110309547Literally the first result on google>There are an estimated 1.1 to 1.2 billion white people in the world, making up roughly 10% to 14% of the total global populationSorry to break your demoralization bubble
>>110309570>There is no single official count of white people in the world. Estimates vary from 640 million to 1.2 billion, depending on how "white" or European ancestry is defined by different censuses and organizations.That's the jewgle result and it's patently false, you cannot include 200m people from south America as White you absolute brown fucktard
>>110309505> Having an incomplete view of reality doesn't make reality subjectiveYes it does! To you, for starters. since you can never know it. How can you prove objectivity exist if you can't prove it and neither can mathematics? You're making a basic logical failure here.>the underlying rules of the universe remain objectiveWhat the fuck do you think quantum mechanics demonstrates? That the universe is probabilistic. What is "certain" and "objective" is only what looks so when the probability is high enough. It's an emergent property, that's what your objective truth is. Even gravity is only "mostly true, most of the time, from your point of view". Whether ultimately the universe is deterministic is a complete speculation, and hotly debated to this day. A total speculative unknown you're claiming as truth!Obviously all i wrote is my subjective opinion and feelings. Because it's the best we can get. At best we can try to create "more objective" statements that we share with more people, but OP's statement is not! Entire countries can believe entirely wrong statements and share them as "truth", which is why propaganda exists.
>>110309514Why do they hate it so much and try co-opt it every day if they invented it? Why did the church eagerly support the nazis who wanted kikes gone from Europe? Why did Martin Luther viciously wanted the kikes dead? Why did christian countries evict kikes for a millenium? I can go on...
>>110309601You just refuted yourself in your last sentence. If truth is purely subjective, how can an entire country believe an "entirely wrong" statement? Calling something "wrong" or "propaganda" admits there is an objective reality they're failing to match. Also, "probabilistic" doesn't mean "subjective", quantum probabilities still obey strict, objective mathematical laws, not your personal feelings.Now are you uncertain the Holocaust happened or not?
>>110309387OP didnt ask me about the veracity of what Grok said. He asked if being too honest is harmful.You are the one making actually irrelevant comments.
>>110309626>why do jews use reverse psychology >why did the church actively work against the nazis and try to assasinate Hitler? Read up on kirchen Kampf >why was martin luthers real name martinus leder and why was he a philosemite for most of his life?>why did christians let the jews back in countless of times? Why did they give jews a monopoly on moneylending etc
>>110309657Your statement implied grok was providing misinformation, you failed to give objective reasons why
>>110309646>If truth is purely subjective, how can an entire country believe an "entirely wrong" statement?Obviously, from my point view, or from the point of view of its own people at another time in the future. The implication of "wrong" in what i say is "from the point of view of the same subjects who believe it true now"The "fact" of the holocaust is also nonsense. That's why if you debate it you waste your time. The "more objective" facts are that there was a war, jews were hated, and jews were killed. Now is a concentration camp a prison, a killing field, a vacation resort? Even if you had mostly objective numbers, people would disagree on it. Some would say "well, 200k dying still made it a resort, because people died mostly from typhus!" while another would say "actually even a dozen jews executed makes it a holocaust"That's why it's a bunch of nonsense and no one will ever agree on it, even if you had the most accurate figures possible. Propaganda gives you absolutes: "systematic killing of 6 million jews". Ok, do the deaths from typhus count? Because hygiene in camps was worse than in people's homes. Or was it? Maybe the hygiene was better than the ghettoes and so jew lives were saved. But were the ghettoes the fault of jews or the government forcing them to live there? But what about those that starved in the camps? In Hitler's mind, what did he subconsciously actually want vs what he said? Even Hitler himself might not have known his deepest desire to "kill all jews".So in the end did the nazis systematically kill jews? The answer is that it depends on perspective, and it's such a broad question as to be pointless, unless you had a group consensus to kill all jews, which simply didn't exist, as most Germans were clueless about any "holocaust". They just wanted the jews evicted or regulated. Or did they? Once you understand relativism, you can't be objective, but you can be aware of subjectivity and adjust your POV.
>>110309362He can hire other people to do that and I'm pretty sure they're not millionaires
>>110309694a perfect example of the subjectivity of reality. Flat earthers also work this way. You cannot disprove a flat earther. Even if you bring them into space they will claim you're projecting a hologram on their retinas to trick them. It's not that flat earthers don't understand objectivity, it's that they don't understand subjectivity. If all other humans on earth believe the earth to be round, then it doesn't mean it's objective, it means subjectively there's a reason for them to. To disprove the humans saying "earth is round" you can't just say "earth is flat", you need to demonstrate their facts to be more subjective than yours, which flat earther can't do and neither can you for your claims, while i can go to view Martin Luder's historical home tomorrow.
>>110309835Yeah but he still reaches his goals and ambitions. My life ambition was never to work for others, but I have to because my life course led me to this point and without a certain amount of money I will be stuck here, trying to actually make that money.
>>110309785You’re confusing word games with reality. Calling a prison a "resort" doesn't change the physical events happening inside. By redefining "wrong" to mean "a different POV," you’ve completely erased the concept of lying. Under your logic, nobody is ever dishonest or mistaken; they're just "adjusting their POV." You haven't disproven objective truth, you've just broken the meaning of words so you can never be wrong which is exactly what a jew does, he resorts to semantic argumentation. The funny thing is this is also why your people have such a strong propensity towards schizophrenia
>>110309931Lying has nothing to do with POV. I can say:"The nazi camps were resorts". If i'm taking the POV of the nazis, i am speaking my subjective truth.If my POV is that of a kike, and i say that, i'm lying. Lying is simply speaking something different from one's belief of POV.Which is why your girlfriend can say "i love you" today and cheat on you tomorrow, without lying.I know it's super disturbing at first, but once you figure it out, you can become far more objective than you've ever been in your life. The trick is that by knowing subjectivity you can be "more objective". To other people that looks like you're the most factually correct, well-reasoned person on earth. It's trivial for me to get jews to admit the holocaust didn't happen, because i never deny any of their subjective perspectives, for instance.
>>110310004You’re confusing sincerity with truth. Genuinely believing something in the moment just means you aren't lying, it doesn't make you right. If someone sincerely believes they can fly and steps off a roof, they aren't speaking "subjective truth," they're just wrong, and the pavement will prove it.Also, look at your own phrasing: "become far more objective" and "most factually correct." You can't get closer to objectivity or facts if neither exists. You're still relying on objective truth just to explain your own theory
>>110308418fpbp
>>110309931> You’re confusing word games with reality. Calling a prison a "resort" doesn't change the physical events happening inside. Was it a resort because it had pools?Or was it a prison because people were forced inside?It can be argued to be both and neither. What i'm trying to explain is that to be more objective about it, you can't use either definition. You must account for subjectivity.It's much more objective to say: "The concentration camps existed. Some jews were forced in them. Some of these jews then died for various causes inside the camps. Some of the people running the camps despised the jews. The sum of public opinion of the jews was worsened by the nazi propaganda"Notice how i'm not claiming any "truth". I am just listing facts, each of which is falsifiable, but now another person has to falsify them to debate me. If they say "the holocaust happened!" they're automatically wrong. They would have to prove how many died and for what reasons exactly, fail to do so, and lose the argument.People who try to prove the holocaust produce endless "evidence", none of which is more objective than saying "there are no remains or established means to cause all these deaths".It doesn't even mean the holocaust didn't happen, it means that in a competition of being "more objective about the holocaust" the most subjectivity-aware person wins the argument by producing the most objective falsifiable statements. And it's how science works too.So going back to OP, all of that is bullshit, because no statement is even remotely stating facts. It's all propaganda pushing a POV. It's as good as flat earthers' claims and easily dismissed.Look at the first line."Most people are not rational" Rational according to whose point of view?I can simply say: "Humans are capable of reason and rationality" and i'm automatically more objective than it, with a more broadly agreeable statement, winning the argument on that line.
>>110308395
>>110310243Saying "I'm not claiming truth, just listing facts" is pure word salad, a fact is a true statement about objective reality.You're also relying on a textbook granularity fallacy: claiming a macro-event is "automatically wrong" unless someone accounts for every single micro-detail with 100% precision. By your logic, saying "World War II happened" is automatically wrong unless you can prove the exact cause of death for every single casualty.Finally, having a pool doesn't make a forced confinement camp a "resort" any more than giving a hostage a sandwich makes it a "dinner party." You haven't unlocked some higher objectivity, you're just hiding behind pedantry to dodge obvious conclusions.
>>110308395That thin minority are the white people of the world. But elon's grok obviously talks about billionaires and other rich born exploiters.
>>110310094That's exactly the point. My "being more objective" is simply leveraging a more impersonal POV. It's "being less subjective". Again, if i were God, even "jews died in the camps" might be nonsense, because to me humans are immortal souls and being on earth is just an experience, not death, and human flesh being decomposed is just as alive as their bodies running their biological programs.Obviously as a human it's pointless for me to take the POV of gods, aliens or rocks. So i take the POV of an average imaginary group of neutral observers. Just an approximation of not being biased. That's what we call "objectivity", but it's not objective truth, and it's at best "a falsifiable set of assumptions", a theory. (Mathematics is an example of a system built around such effort, and Goedel demonstrated that this approach hits an inherent limit too in describing reality.)All i'm doing is simply denying my own subjective view when i encounter another. I personally have my own belief about the holocaust, for instance. I am just aware that that belief is subjective. I believe it because i like that POV, not because i "know the truth".Liberals for example make the opposite mistake of pretending they can abandon subjectivity entirely and always be relativistic. That's also impossible. All we humans have deeply rooted subjective beliefs. We can simply put them aside partially for a time to adopt a more impersonal POV to state falsifiable facts according to our POVs to compare them and generalize them among a group. That's what "objectivity" is, and it doesn't even come close to the truth, or true objectivity. It's just synchronizing subjectivity among a larger group, which is why scientific consensus is often wrong too. And more importantly "feeling you're right" automatically proves to yourself you can't be!
>>110310487What you’re describing is intersubjectivity, a method humans use to check their biases, not what creates reality. Even in your "God POV," the physical event, the bodies decomposing, still objectively happened, you’re just attaching different meanings to the exact same fact.You also have Gödel completely backwards. He proved that consistent formal systems contain true statements that cannot be proven within the system meaning objective truth outruns human proof, not that truth doesn't exist.And if "feeling you're right proves you can't be," you just refuted your entire post.
>>110310344>Finally, having a pool doesn't make a forced confinement camp a "resort" any more than giving a hostage a sandwich makes it a "dinner party." Bingo.For the guy holding the gun, it's a dinner party. For the hostage at gunpoint it's captivity. Was a guy kept hostage at a dinner party, or were people having dinner in a hostage situation? It depends who you ask and what their POV is.
>>110308708Your testes are completely smashed bro
>>110310551You're confusing multiple simultaneous facts with subjectivity. In that room, it is objectively true that people are eating, and objectively true that someone is being held at gunpoint.The gunman calling it a "dinner party" doesn't make it one, by definition, guests at a party aren't there under threat of death. His subjective delusion doesn't change the objective reality of the gun.
>>110310571Yeah I'm sure yours are plump and heavy from all the jew juice you injected
>>110310539Interference patterns between probabilistic outcomes create observed reality. Look at the double slit experiment. Hence to have a good grasp of relative reality we perform intersubjectivity and leverage collective POV sums.> You also have Gödel completely backwards.sounds like an AI opinion.> objective truth outruns human proof, not that truth doesn't exist.Yes, and humans cannot demonstrate objective truth even with mathematics with certainty, exactly because it "outruns us" and our current systems. Goedel doesn't demonstrate if truth is ultimately possible in the universe. Just that we cannot reach it. I never said that objectivity doesn't exist absolutely, but i said that we don't know if it does. And even if it does we cannot achieve it, so for all intents and purposes we can never claim to be objective or to know objective truth.
>>110310588> guests at a party aren't there under threat of deathWho decided that? Maybe i run dinner parties with some guests being under threat of death. The majority of us are celebrating and having dinner, how is it not a dinner party? If i was caught, the media would blast "Dinner party with hostages discovered!" because they automatically know that the majority POV has priority on reality, heh
>>110310588You're literally saying "sixes can't be nines because nines don't have the curl facing upwards" from >>110309268. You're just stubbornly refusing to be more objective. In the hostage situation both POVs are equally accurate. One is just more aligned with a specific moral code than the other.
>>110310707>>110310780Even in your own fake headline, the media had to add "with hostages", proving that calling it just a "dinner party" is factually false. You're confusing word definitions with physical reality. Being held at gunpoint isn't a "moral code," it's a measurable physical state, and slapping a cute label on it doesn't change the event.And the "6 vs. 9" cliché proves my point, not yours: whoever painted that number on the ground drew a specific digit. Standing upside down doesn't make both answers equally accurate, it just means one person is looking at it backwards.
>>110308395no. but almost all of the humans cannot accept the reality and deal with it. which is why the "society" is built on bullshit and keeps brainwashing literal cattle into being good wagie cagie normies. good unwashed masses for their owners.
