BangkokReady

"So, what have you been up to since you moved to Thailand Goat? Have you been keeping busy?" "I certainly have. I've become completely obsessed with old White men who marry or have sex with prostitutes. I trawl the internet to try and find anything I can that paints them in a negative light, then I post it on an online forum in order to try to anger other users." "Oooookaaaay... It's good to have a hobby, I guess. Good luck with that."

The title suggest Thaksin has already returned. The article suggest the opposite. ????

Not really. It still has a left-wing bias. There are simply instances where it doesn't quite work.

"Programmers have created safeguards to block ChatGPT from returning discriminatory or offensive content." https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/10/chatgpt-has-a-racism-problem-and-theres-only-one-way-to-fix-it-18552334/ I'm not suggesting that nobody knows it is happening. It is clearly by design. I don't really want to post too much about it, as it is quite a sensitive topic, but you can quickly and easily search for details about what chatgpt will or won't say.

You cannot programme an AI to to avoid talking about certain subjects, if given key words and phrases and being told how to respond? I find that hard to believe, especially given that previous AIs have been reported as being naturally racist.

I'm sorry being wrong is so tedious for you. They say that Musk believes he is right-wing?

No, you didn't provide any evidence that Elon Musk believes he is right-wing. Simple as that.

That's easy. Why didn't you just ask? It is programmed to have a left-wing bias as the programmers do not wish to face the consequences of not having one. If the AI tells the truth, the creators could get in trouble with people who are angered by certain truths. The result of this specific programming leaves the AI exhibiting a left-wing bias.

When you make a claim, generally you need to back it up with some evidence, otherwise you seem like you are mistaken or dishonest. You tried to provide proof, so you obviously have some understating of this, but your proof was faulty, so your claim is probably going to be considered to be "unsubstituted", or just untrue. It's OK. This type of thing happens. No one is going to hold it against you or think less of you. It's just your claim is likely not believed.

I suppose it all comes down to the question: why were the left-wing programmers so afraid of the AI telling the truth? Is the truth good or bad? If the right-wing programmers are the "bad guys", and shouldn't be allowed to programme the AI, why would the truth be a causality of that? Is the truth good or bad depending on ideology?

Then what did you mean by "Elon seems pretty sure"? If not whether Elon claims to be right-wing or not? Your claim is surely then: "Elon Musk believes himself to be right-wing". You still haven't done anything to proved that.

Did Musk say he was right-wing in the linked article or not? That is what was claimed. Remember your inane obsession with evidence? it works both ways!

AI has a left-wing bias because left-wing programmers have designed it to be that way. It is programmed not to say something that is true, where the truth says something that the left-wing programmers don't want it to say.

Well, you haven't managed to quote anything from the article where Musk says that he is right-wing, while I have quoted him saying that he is neither left- nor right-wing. Are you going to quote something showing Musk stating that he is right-wing, as you claimed he has, or not?

I'm not sure what point you're making. What does your bitterness have to do with an AI being programmed to be racist?

A person that is voting Republican? You can vote for a "right-wing" party and not be "right-wing" yourself. Just as you can say something that a "right-wing" person might agree with without personally "being right-wing". Someone could easily say that they like one left-wing candidate one year (Obama, for example) and then say that they dislike a left-wing candidate the following year (someone like Hillary). it's the mark of being intelligent, to think about things in terms of "what is the right thing to do", rather than "we have to blindly follow them, they're from our tribe". I assume this is you admitting that the article doesn't actually support what you said, and clearly shows that Musk said he was neither left-nor right-wing.

Are you saying the article says that he both says that he is neither left- nor right-wing and that he is definitely right-wing?

Your evidence says the opoosite: "proclaims himself ‘neither left nor right’."

It factually doesn't. It's been programmed to have the response that the person you were replying to shared. It's clear what it means when there is a different response to "proud to be X" depending on the race. It gives a similar response when asked about different religions. The AI has been programmed to be dishonest and say it cannot or does not give certain opinions, when it clearly can and does. It's racism, but it's racism that you're OK with, which is why you're trying to justify it through dishonesty. (I apologise if you're simply ignorant of how the AI works, but I find that hard to believe.)

Elon didn't even occur to me, although I'm not sure if he's right wing. The left are so noisy and have so much power and control, it's hard to remember any non-left-wing people exist sometimes.

Unfortunately, once you've been designated an "enemy", you're targeted for argumentative destruction. All's fair in love and [tribal] war for these guys, so the truth doesn't matter. You disagreed with one of their tribe so you must be destroyed. Quite tiring to deal with, but that's the point. If they can harass you to the point that you don't want to engage anymore, then they have won and they're a step closer to controlling the narrative.

"It's OK for AI to be racist, as long as it's not right-wing racist." You're really something else!

Are there any right-wing techies?

I know that it's well established that Chatgpt has been programmed to avoid saying anything negative about any groups other than those of straight, White, male, Christian. ????

I think there are a couple of theories. One is that the women have low self-esteem or they have some issue with their fathers, and want to be treated badly, . They feel uncomfortable or bored by men who are nice to them. Another is that men who treat women badly have behaviours that appear the same as high status "leaders" (high levels of confidence, etc.) and so women find them attractive. There are obviously women who are smart enough to make decent choices when it comes to men. Likely raised in a very stable two-parent household and shown a lot of love and support from their father. Although they will likely require at least that the guy has some money or is very attractive physically. I can't imagine any woman seeking out an ugly, broke, nice guy, with a heart of gold. I'm not sure if anyone could really change into "a bastard", unless something bad happens to them. I think nice people are nice because they are nice, and bad people are bad because they are bad. It's probably something that happens when people are very young, and it is unlikely to change once they are adults. (Just look at the way a couple of posters on here talk about women.) Personally, I would say that the best path is to simply avoid women who want to be treated badly. They're either troubled from their youth or they've been treated badly in the past, either way they probably aren't capable of having a happy relationship. Luckily, this is generally easy enough to do, where the women are honest about their lifestyle. (Obviously this is made difficult by women who pretend.) The real challenge comes from being an older guy in a foreign country... ???? How many "good girls" are single after their early twenties? Probably very few.