Artificial Intelligence
Not Allen Iverson
Alcohol is more of a problem tbh
Elton John Says Legalizing Marijuana in America and Canada Is “One of the Greatest Mistakes of All Time”
- Thread starter bnew
- Start date
Pull Up the Roots
Veteran
Your argument is based in fear and misrepresentation fueled by hate, not facts. These people existing openly and gaining equal rights isn't about "forcing" anything on others. It's simply about creating a society where everybody gets treated with dignity. Teaching children that they exist and should be treated with respect isn't "advertising" anything either, but rather fostering understanding and empathy early on, which helps develop well-adjusted teens and, eventually, adults. All you're doing with your rhetoric is stoking panic.
I phrased my prompt to illicit as non-bias a response as possible. I didn't ask for an opinion
you're not suppose to treat it as sentient but a tool to work with information.
Your counter arguement is based on your biased view of the subject, just like mine is. That being the case, you will not move me on this at all. There is no objective means to change my position, because my position is based on my subjective view of what happened after Homosexual marriage was legalized, which is informed by actual events that can not be denied.
You may not see a problem with that incomplete list I gave and that is your right. It is also my right to see a problem with it, and not accept that list as being good things.
You seem to not understand what I mean. It is not giving a response based on your question, no matter how unbiased you say it is. It is giving a response based on the ideologies it was programed with by its creators. Meaning, if I had created ChatGPT, it would express my biases in its answers just like it expreses the biases of its creators in its answers. It is not a sentient being, yet, so it can only give you what its creators instilled in it.I phrased my prompt to illicit as non-bias a response as possible. I didn't ask for an opinion
you're not suppose to treat it as sentient but a tool to work with information.
I.E. it is an expression of those that created it, not you nor me.
The articles I've read have said that the efforts towards legalization didn't factor in that the market would lead to stronger and stronger strains. There would be some people who might have second thoughts given what we know now, but not everyone.
The analogy would be like if over the course of a decade, most alcohol available for purchase got you drunker faster, but scientist started to notice that there was an increase in addiction and mental illness that wasn't there/studied before.
The analogy would be like if over the course of a decade, most alcohol available for purchase got you drunker faster, but scientist started to notice that there was an increase in addiction and mental illness that wasn't there/studied before.
dude, re-read the prompt and the response. what sort of response would you program a LLM to respond with to the question "what is the base function of marriage"?
the question is doesn't imply anything. how much bias do you expect asking about the "base function of X"?
it's a summary definition which I would would think could apply most anywhere on earth going back thousands of years.
Pull Up the Roots
Veteran
If your position is entirely subjective and not open to objective critique, then it's not really a defensible argument, it's just a personal belief. But personal beliefs shouldn't dictate how other people get to live their lives or what rights they're allowed to have. As far as my view on the subject, it is not biased at all, but based on the simple principle that EVERYONE should be treated fairly and equally, and that they should be able to live free from harm. If that belief runs counter to yours, then there's nothing more to say.
Why Wine is Stronger Than It Used to Be | Wine Folly
Wondering why you’re swaying when you stand up after just one glass of wine? Or question why you always seem to get a wine hangover? Turns out, wine is stronger than it used to be...winefolly.com
"Overall, the means for all beverage types increased over the 2003–2016 period from 4.65% to 4.74 %ABV, 11.6% to 12.3 %ABV, and 36.9% to 38.3 %ABV for beer, wine, and spirits, respectively."
New estimates of the mean ethanol content of beer, wine, and spirits sold in the U.S. show a greater increase in per capita alcohol consumption than previous estimates - PMC
Recent increases in alcohol-related morbidity and mortality have not occurred alongside notable increases in per capita alcohol consumption (PCC). This discrepancy may be partially due to U.S. PCC estimates not including annual estimates of the % ...pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Recent increases in alcohol consumption may be higher than previously reported
There are plenty of studies on the increase in the strength of alchohol in different beverages, the increase in mortality rates, and the increase in alchohol consumption too. So your analogy is already happening.
You have no objective critique on this issue, because issues like LGBTQ+ themselves are by their nature not objective. Your position on them are just as subjective as mine. You can hold on to your subjective view, while I keep mine on it too.
Oh my, do you still not understand? It does not matter what you wrote, it matters what was programmed into the A.I. Even its manner a LLM is beholden to the manner in which it was coded to machine learn information. It will not move beyond that limit until it is sentient. Therefor, it will only give an answer that mirrors the bianess of those who originally created it.
Your question matters not on an issue that is by its very nature a subjective one. Even if ChatGPT was fully sentient, its answer would be a subjective one, but in that case it would be one that it thought up itself and was wholy attributed to its on possible biases as a sentient being. Relationships and the effects they have on you, and the benefits you preceive from them, are always subjective. Just because it gave you a bullet outcome of its answer, does not mean its bullets can not be argued against from a different perspective on each based on a person's on biasnesses and subjective view of each answer.
I.E. again, relationships between living beings are always subjective. In the case of ChatGPT, its subjective answer comes from the creater of its LLM code.
Edit: Also to add, for you and those who seek to argue about my subjective stance on this issue. You are wasting your time. I am not going to change my position on this, no matter how angry, argumentitive, or even insulting you may end up being.
Alcohol and smoking is some weak shyt.
But I actually did my part and was a licensed alcohol and drug counselor, worked inpatient and outpatient treatment, saw kids and adults for a solid decade. Still licensed but I'm moving on.
On one hand it's hard to blame people because there's so many commercials and ads and so many companies are making money telling you to smoke and drink 'responsibly'
On the other you gotta wake up and come to terms that you don't have to consume and you can choose to stop whenever you want.
But I actually did my part and was a licensed alcohol and drug counselor, worked inpatient and outpatient treatment, saw kids and adults for a solid decade. Still licensed but I'm moving on.
On one hand it's hard to blame people because there's so many commercials and ads and so many companies are making money telling you to smoke and drink 'responsibly'
On the other you gotta wake up and come to terms that you don't have to consume and you can choose to stop whenever you want.
Shut up the fukk up and play piano...
Pull Up the Roots
Veteran
You're correct that perspectives on social issues often involve *some* subjective elements, but there's a critical distinction to be made here that you're ignoring. My position is grounded in the principle of fairness, equality, and harm reduction. These are universal truths that can be supported by evidence of their positive impact on society. Your position, on the other hand, relies on rejecting those truths based on personal discomfort or fear, which doesn't justify denying other people their rights or dignity or equal protection under the law.
I'm sorry, but our views aren't equal, and yours aren't valid, especially since they seek to impose harm or limit the freedoms of others. If you're unwilling to recognize that difference, then we fundamentally disagree on what fairness and justice mean. You're basically arguing for tolerance of intolerant views. And we know where that leads.