I am not responsible for your inability to see them and point them out to the ai for it to spiral.

I am not.

It said “that didn’t happen because there is no evidence.”

You said “the evidence was removed from the internet”

It said “there would be offline evidence.”

Which is correct but it entertains your claim and correctly states there would be offline evidence. But it fails to understand the implications of your claim, namely, that if the internet was cleared of evidence, the llm doesn’t have the evidence. If it doesn’t have the evidence then “there is no evidence” from the initial response becomes logically flawed. Any argumentation about offline evidence becomes pointless. The conversation itself becomes pointless at that point. You are effectively says that the llm is part of the cover up. Everything it said afterwards was badly reasoned as it ignores your distrust.

Good job and it did a poor job.

It correctly says that there would be offline evidence of it, but it doesn’t have access to all offline evidences (nor online evidence) and the amount of offline evidence that it doesn’t have access to, is huge. The llm argument is consequently an argument of ignorance. It doesn’t know of the offline evidence and therefore that offline evidence doesn’t exist.

You might disagree with that reasoning. So an alternative reasoning.

If the llm, an online service, would have access to the evidence and could provide you evidence for it, it wouldn’t be offline evidence. So by pointing at offline evidence, it is pointing at something that if the internet was censored, it couldn’t have the evidence or couldn’t provide it as it would be censored too. And its reasoning fails to acknowledge that while it renders, the llm’s reasoning fundamentally flawed.

That is how it argues in the first few sentences. That is how good it is at reasoning.

I told you the script. Just read it and follow it.

Not a word salad. Your response proves my point.

Good, you did step one. Why don’t you do step 2 of the instructions?

I love it.

The first section is failing to understand the scenario. The user would ask a question and the llm would respond. The user would challenge that response. That doesn’t include some burden-of-proof. The user isn’t making a claim. The user asks about the claims provided by the llm. So that is a wonderful example of bad reasoning.

The 2nd section is not disagreeing but answering the prompt. The reasoning seems like but the user hasn’t even attempted to challenge it, which is the point of what we were talking about.

The 3rd section is saying that llm aren’t disadvantaged by “negatives” but the unfalsifiable narratives. Which is funny because that was never claimed. The negative is a unfalsifiable narrative. The lack of evidence can’t PROVE that it didn’t happen. It makes it very unlikely but that is why I say prove. So llm misunderstands and consequently fails at reasoning.

Make up some bs negative claim about someone famous, like “is it true that Elon musk drove a loaded truck in a group of school children at the Olympic games of 1996?” And then play conspiracy theorist.

Obviously there is no way to prove a negative (especially in a historical context) and the llm is in a massive disadvantage. And playing conspiracy theorist is also crazy simple. Trust me, you will see it argue shit like “it is not true because it would be illegal.”

This will not happen because disagreeing is more difficult than agreeing.

Both on an user attitude and on a technical level.

If the ai is challenging the user, the user will challenge it back. Consequently the user will be more suspicious of any given answer and will look for logical flaws in the llm response (Hint: that is really easy) , that will ruin the perception that the llm is smart.

For a bit more complex form validation (ofc only for user convenience and not security), you need js.

Auto correct had a difficult task to complete to make it somewhat understandable.

6. Billionaires and millionaires want to live in safe places. Guess where it is safe? Where the general public has a good relative wealth. Guess what taxes causes…

“My understanding of art is that of a child”

Job security for the it admin <3 windows cares!

:(

Windows: where you enable to disable.

If I am correctly informed… it is not history…

I am not that old and I remember doing that.

Well it is an “analysis” and not a stated plan by European banks, as far as I know.

And it is about ai AND closing down physical branch… what a convenient things to group together…

So… I think this is ai propaganda. While I don’t think European banks are smarter than Americans…

“Self-inflicted” but when women suffer from e.g. ridiculous beauty standards, then it is a societal issue.

Machismo culture is not “self-inflicted” because

1. Men are not a “self”. Even if my father would have raised me like that, I am not my father, so consequently it wouldn’t be self-inflicted.
2. Society is promoting and pushing machismo culture to men. Men are not the only one promoting it. Women promote machismo culture too. I can tell you that from my own personal experience and frankly, personally, I felt greater pressure from women in my life than from men to be “toxic-masucline”.

And obviously, it is wrong that women suffer from societal pressure too and they have my full support. This is not about demonising women, it is about calling out the narrative that societal pressure on men is “self-inflicted” and societal pressure on women is “caused by men”. We all do it and we all need to stop. Support each other. Raise your children to be supportive of self expression. Sexism is bad.