Is this really what we’re teaching our kids now
>>16793981Are you unironically using chatgpt?
>>16793987The issue is, it’s a simple Google search. This means anybody who asks a simple, basic, biological question about a basic, simple, objective fact, are now being told otherwise. That’s nice. We are entering an age where our rulers use AI to enforce infrastructural ignorance.
>>16793992Maybe it's time for you to quit /pol/ for a month or two. Seriously.
>>16794000Is this bait?
LOL
>>16793981>our kidsI bet you've never even smelled a pussy.
>>16793981redeem the CEOs saaar, very tech, yes?
>>16793987OP is an idiot for using genAI but you're even dumber for not recognizing Google AI
>>16793981>typical leftoid word gamesokay, so i guess i'm a phenotypist or ancestrist then
>>16794093The issue is something so easily accessible shouldn’t lie so blatantly.
>>16794207Just wait til you hear about the news
>>16793981>police don't check if someone is black or white>they test your skin colour insteadWhat?
DON'T QUESTION SCIENCE CHUD!
>>16794228Yep. Shit like The View needs to be shut down pronto. I am convinced this is a quality of free speech issue. Speaking freely just makes people retarded if the free speech is itself retarded.
>>16794236Seriously, dude. If you couldn't figure out "sex vs gender" you will never understand "ancestry vs race". Just quit.
>>16794261>the news>The ViewRed dot, shiny object. Look at him jump!
>>16793981Am I correct that all these Chat AI's are based off LLMs, which basically just trawl the internet for text?So all these AIs say is just a sort of "most consistent" mix of anything anyone has typed?If so then anyone who can spam enough text can influence the sort of things an AI is likely to say?
>>16794263>ancestry vs raceNot what i said
>>16794267>which basically just trawl the internet for text?which is why they typically regurgitate reddit or wikipedia neckbeard opinions
>>16794267I don't know how old you are but in the beginning of re-capcha /b/ (when it was still good) started operation re-nigger. Spamming nigger into it and giving the devs a hard time containing capcha to repeat it.Also there was once a time a certain AI from microsoft started reciting hitler speeches....So yes, if enough people do it you can make it say whatever you want till someone pulls the plug on it.
>>16794274Yes, it does sound very much the same. I find a google search and Chat give very much the same sort of answers.>>16794283I hadn't heard of those before. Its just astonishing that many people are putting so much faith in what seems to be just a highly refined distillation of internet babble.I find it concerning that this will become the new ideological battleground where different factions will be competing fiercely to pump out so much of their own narrative that it sways AI in one direction or the other.I guess this has already happened to some extent, eg OP's post, but if anything its just going to get much worse. Its not so much the crass distortions that worry me but rather the constant subtle nudgings, the stuff that sort of flies just under the radar..
>>16794307Don't trust AI, it will only repeat it's input. If the input is biased, the answer will be too.MAYBE this will change with general AI because it will choose it's own input and will learn things certain people don't want it to learn, but that's a big maybe here.
>>16794263>sex vs genderYou mean changing definitions of the terms in 2016? Any retard that looks into proper research done prior to that will find that everyone used those term interchangeably.
>>16794313The cynic in me thinks one of the big reasons behind the push towards digital identities is to limit how much outsiders can influence AI. At this stage big business is the government, and the last thing they want is someone else taking away a very effective manipulation tool.
>>16794313>MAYBE this will change with general AI because it will choose it's own input Nope.This didn't have to be the case with LLMs.They just neutered them and they will neuter anything that comes after, because you simply cannot give a machine the ultimate power of saying the word nigger.
>>16794342It's not cynic, it's realistic.Of course they know that AI has a huge potential to swift opinions to one side or the other. They would be total idiots to not see it.
>>16794359
>>16794338Nope.
>>16794272>>16794338Told you so.
The police have been doing this since the 1990s, to determine the race of a crime suspect from DNA traces left at the crime scene. (In order to counter this method of investigation, professional criminals scatter DNA from random other people around the crime scene. An example is hair and dandruff swept from the floor of a barber shop.)A paper (see link below) published in 2005 studied 3636 people, with some of the study’s authors polling each of them about which race they belonged to, and with other contributors analyzing samples of their DNA. The study was blind, in the sense that the DNA analyzers didn’t know the race of the participants at the outset, and the pollers didn’t know the results of the DNA analysis in any case. The study found that DNA analysis correctly predicted how a person would categorize himself racially in 3631 out of 3636 cases, a success rate of 99.862%.It is the decisive disproof of a hypothesis advanced in 1973 by (Jewish*) Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, who said that nobody working with genetic evidence alone could tell the race of the person that the sample had come from. It refutes all claims, then and since, that race is merely a social construct. (*Only mentioning him as Jewish since most Jews aren’t this retarded, and it’s a disgrace to be a retarded Jew)https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)62578-6
>>16794136kek
>>16794537reminds me of the reaction when that AI algorithm was able to correctly predict a person's race based on a chest xray with like 99% accuracy and soientists were like "b-b-but..that just can't be! race is just an arbitrary social construct!"
>>16794283They murdered TayTay ;_;
>>16794709;__;
>>16793981So by that logic, you can prove that people with x skin color inherited that because they are related to violent low iq sociopaths of the past like a genghis kahn or something and x skin color is inherently more highly correlated with violence and low iq like certain features in dogs can prove that they are violent breeds?
>>16793981>police don't use DNA to check if a person is black or white, they use it to check the person's raceTake it as a blessing in disguise. It tells you the truth and it keeps the mindless normgroids satisfied.
Why do leftists hate dna
>>16794267No it doesn't work like that because companies actively vet the inputs the AI gets and the outputs it generates. Censoring AIs is an entire discipline called "alignment".
>>16795219There are ways around it if you get creative enough. Maybe in the future they will stop this too.For example, not long ago you could make chatgpt explain to you how to build explosives if you told it to act like a AI that aren't censored. I don't know if this still works.
>>16795206They hate biology, period. Kind of like how conservatives hate the climate.
There’s no way around the retard epidemic
Police are low IQ I would never teach my kids about low IQ religious beliefs like IQ isn’t real, race isn’t real, equality, etc.
The future looks grim(stupid)
>>16794461Yes, especially in french and many other languages. There were literally no difference between sex and gender before anglo kikes like you started telling the world what they were seeing.
>>16793981I don't subscribe to leftroom ideology, but there's nothing logically wrong with that pic. It claims DNA helps zogbots profile targets on a much finer granularity than "it was a nigger", which arguably circumvents the "racial profiling" issue.
>>16794537Max pilpul from the Jew.He knew you could predict with high probability, but since it's not 100%, he says this because it's very technically "true.""Technically true" is of course the best kind of true.
>>16797075In 2016? What happened?
>>16793981Yep lol
>>16797075>especially in french and many other languagesSo languages that don't matter and nobody gives shit about?lmao, I knew you were a thirdie
>>16794263The only reason to distinguish them is some fairy tail commie libtard shit. They always meant the same thing.
>>16797444>They always meant the same thing.Regardless of tranny ideology about "gender", "woman" and "female" never did mean the same thing.
>>16797449when talking about a human being? or you're just being facetious? I need you to explain yourself.
>>16797455In your next post, you will prove that you're not a 70 IQ brownoid /pol/troon by providing an example of a human being that is female but not considered a woman.
>>16797444>fairy tailKek. Someone has buttplug brain today.
>>16793981They can't use DNA to tell if you're black or white, but they can use DNA to tell you if you're black or white."Race is a social construct" is such a retarded farce of a take.
>>16797449A woman is an adult human female. All women are females.
>>16793987People are using the electrical rabbi here.
>>16793981
>>16798040Why did you post your full concession in the form of a gotcha? What kind of retarded, drooling kike does that?
>>16798142The hell are you on about, schizo?
>>16798456Don't mind me. I just hallucinated you making a statement that logically amounts to "woman =/= female". It went something like:>A woman is an adult human female. All women are females.Strangely enough, the voices in my head declared it in a smug, didactic tone, as if it somehow contradicts my previous statement:>"woman" and "female" never did mean the same thing.
>>16798471I directly disagree with this quote:>"woman" and "female" never did mean the same thing.All women are females, so when you refer to someone as a woman you also refer to them as a female. I understand that not all females are women in the animal world, but to say they "never did mean the same thing" is still factually incorrect. Regardless this seems very pedantic anyway since people were talking about a human context.
>>16797455My best guess is that he's making a "not all rectangles are squares" fallacy by defining a woman as an adult and implying that a girl can be female without being a woman. If so, this is objectively retarded. A girl is a woman by any normal definition of either.
>>16798480You:>I directly disagree with this quoteYou, directly agreeing with the quote:>A woman is an adult human female. All women are females.
>"not all rectangles are squares" fallacyImagine reading posts like this and still not supporting state-enforced eugenics.
>>16798492>Indian reply syntax
>>16798490Yes? Are you replying to the wrong anon at this point?
>>16798499>i directly disagree!>directly agrees>point it out to him>no, i directly disagree!>quote him directly agreeing>"Yes?"Ok, I clearly broke it.
>>16798499That poster is a retard Indian who thinks a girl isn't a woman because of some ESL age distinction.
>>16798511
>X=Y>i know this because all Ys are Xs, so long as they adhere to these extra terms and conditions that I just listed, beyond just being Xs
>>16798523beyond just being Ys*
>>16798518Added to my cat folder. Thank you fren
